Gay man gets €24,000 in discrimination case

Death and Taxes

One would really have hoped that in 21st Century Ireland the type of abuse and discrimination that this man suffered would have long since been a thing of the past!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0123/1224329191111.html

The man said he had been referred to constantly by one manager as “one of the girls”, while another named colleague often referred to his sexuality and expressed a keen interest towards his sex life. “He stated in particular that she often made comments like ‘do you like taking it up the back passage’?”

I'm glad the guy had the courage to take the case and delighted he won it, but really it would have been far better if his employers had used some cop-on.

philologos

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

One would really have hoped that in 21st Century Ireland the type of abuse and discrimination that this man suffered would have long since been a thing of the past!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0123/1224329191111.html

The man said he had been referred to constantly by one manager as “one of the girls”, while another named colleague often referred to his sexuality and expressed a keen interest towards his sex life. “He stated in particular that she often made comments like ‘do you like taking it up the back passage’?”

I'm glad the guy had the courage to take the case and delighted he won it, but really it would have been far better if his employers had used some cop-on.

That's horrible treatment that anyone rational should condemn.

DrumSteve

philologos wrote: »

That's horrible treatment that anyone rational should condemn.

Well this is AH, this place has rationality in spades.

Peregrinus

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

I'm glad the guy had the courage to take the case and delighted he won it, but really it would have been far better if his employers had used some cop-on.

Well, yes. But the cold hard reality of a €24,000 award might persuade this and other employer to use a bit more cop-on in the future.

IM0

so youre angry he got compensation then

Peregrinus

IM0 wrote: »

so youre angry he got compensation then

Is that for me? No, I'm delighted he got compensation. I'm angry that he was bullied, and that his employer did nothing about it.

yosser hughes

I wonder were any of the people involved dismissed? Are they going to pay for the compensation out of credit union funds? If so,why? Shouldn't the actual people involved be forced to pay?
Does anyone know what would normally be the case in situations such as these? Does he stilll have to work with these people? Why should he have to leave his job?

It really is backward stuff though. I can't believe people still feel it's ok to go on like this.

IM0

article wrote:

A gay man who was discriminated against and victimised at the credit union where he worked has been awarded €24,000 by the Equality Tribunal.

In his judgment published yesterday, equality officer Gary O’Doherty found the complainant had been discriminated against “on the sexual orientation ground”.

The man said he had been referred to constantly by one manager as “one of the girls” , while another named colleague often referred to his sexuality and expressed a keen interest towards his sex life. “He stated in particular that she often made comments like ‘do you like taking it up the back passage’?”

sorry but this smaks of over reaction and the article reads like something from the huffington post!

problem? doesnt mean **** on its own its about tone and intent and humour or lack there of.

The complainant had started working at the credit union in April 2008. He said that in July-August that year a named colleague told him the only reason he had been employed was that his family had a long association with the credit union. It was also said his association with Mr A, a member of the board of management and also the treasurer, was the reason he had been employed.

There were comments that the man was having sexual relationship with Mr A, which were unfounded.

Mr O’Doherty said it was “clear” the comments were made and this was “a matter that clearly should have been dealt with by the BOM .”

Another board member, Mr E, referred to the complainant in the presence of other staff members as “queer”. Mr O’Doherty described these comments as “entirely unacceptable” and constituted harassment on the ground of sexual orientation.

Investigations by the employer into the man’s complaints were inadequate.

Mr O’Doherty ordered the credit union to pay the complainant €8,000 in respect of discrimination and €16,000 in respect of victimisation. The award is not subject to tax.

anyway how does this warrant compensation? its not like it was a car crash

L.Jenkins

It's very easy to dismiss what was going on and point the finger of blame at the victim, while stating he was chasing money. I see this sort of shit going on in organisations that are supposedly Pro-LGBT, one of which actually won an award for it's supposed support of LGBT.

Peregrinus

yosser hughes wrote: »

I wonder were any of the people involved dismissed? Are they going to pay for the compensation out of credit union funds? If so,why? Shouldn't the actual people involved be forced to pay?

Employers may discipline employees who, e.g., engage in bullying other employees, but that doesn't usually mean that the bully has to reimburse the employer for the damages award. Fines are not a usual or common outcome of employment disciplinary procedures.

It can mean dismissal, of course, but procedures would have to be followed - warnings, reviews, etc. One of the reasons an employer might have an award of this kind against him is because he doesn't do enough (or anything) to control bullying in the workplace, and his failure to do that also makes it more difficult to discipline bullies after the event - if nothing is done when there are complaints of bullying, no warnings given, etc, then you can't just turn around and fire somebody when you lose an employment discrimination case. The very inaction which caused you to lose the case also makes it difficult to fire the bully - you tolerated his behaviour, and gave him the impression that it was acceptable, or at worst minor. So you can start disciplining him - issuing warnings and so forth for his past conduct. But you can't retrospectively impose standards that you didn't impose at the time.

Death and Taxes

IM0 wrote: »

sorry but this smaks of over reaction and the article reads like something from the huffington post!

problem? doesnt mean **** on its own its about tone and intent and humour or lack there of.



anyway how does this warrant compensation? its not like it was a car crash

Sexual Harrassment (according to the Rights Officer) and discrimination on grounds of sexuality ( Equality Acts). What they did to this victim is a breach of the Equality Acts.

Dravokivich

IM0 wrote: »

sorry but this smaks of over reaction and the article reads like something from the huffington post!

It's not really appropriate talk in the work place and she was making a point of his sexuality being contentious and submissive asking such a question.

From the rest of the article you posted, he appeared to be the target of unfounded gossip and derogatory commentary on a number of occasions. That is harassment in the work place and the very reason why he reported it.

brandon_flowers

(Hypothetical situation)

So if one's colleague asks one "Did you get the ride last night?" And one didn't because one is celibate (or hopeless)...

One can see a windfall coming here!

philologos

IM0 wrote: »

sorry but this smaks of over reaction and the article reads like something from the huffington post!

problem? doesnt mean **** on its own its about tone and intent and humour or lack there of.

anyway how does this warrant compensation? its not like it was a car crash

His manager made abusive comments about him because of his sexuality and a colleague asked a vulgar question about his sex life.

Well deserved. This exercise is quite useful, but ask how you'd feel if that was you. I'd feel pretty vulnerable and awkward. I'm glad the court ruled in his favour.

IM0

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

Sexual Harrassment (according to the Rights Officer) and discrimination on grounds of sexuality ( Equality Acts). What they did to this victim is a breach of the Equality Acts.

fair enough but why does that warrant compensation for him? I could understand if he has reports from psychologists/psychiatrists to back him up but otherwise meh

do you see what Im getting at, its a bit like the ambulance chaser USA mentality

Kev_2012

Does anyone else find it odd that someone genuinely wanted to know about a gay person sex life? Surely if you're straight anyway, that's the last thing you'd want to know! 24k, I'm sure there's something I was slagged about under those protected categories while at work!

Death and Taxes

IM0 wrote: »

sorry but this smaks of over reaction and the article reads like something from the huffington post!

problem? doesnt mean **** on its own its about tone and intent and humour or lack there of.



anyway how does this warrant compensation? its not like it was a car crash

You clearly havn't bothered to read the full linked article, if you did you would see he was the target of sustained harassment and discriminatory treatment by management, at least one director, and several staff!

Annasopra

IM0 wrote: »

fair enough but why does that warrant compensation for him? I could understand if he has reports from psychologists/psychiatrists to back him up but otherwise meh

do you see what Im getting at, its a bit like the ambulance chaser USA mentality

It's compensation for losing his job and the stress he was put through

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

His manager made abusive comments about him because of his sexuality and a colleague asked a vulgar question about his sex life.

Well deserved. This exercise is quite useful, but ask how you'd feel if that was you. I'd feel pretty vulnerable and awkward. I'm glad the court ruled in his favour.

Yeah, I'd feel vulnerable. Or what if like, the gay guy was discriminated against by not being allowed to marry someone making him further alienated. Do you reckon that would be awkward also?

Annasopra

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It's his choice to be gay. Sounds like he was just overly sensitive to me. The world has gone mad.

When did you choose to be heterosexual?

Handsome Bob

The irony of one worker accusing him of getting the job through nepotism.

Dravokivich

IM0 wrote: »

fair enough but why does that warrant compensation for him? I could understand if he has reports from psychologists/psychiatrists to back him up but otherwise meh

do you see what Im getting at, its a bit like the ambulance chaser USA mentality

This isn't on par with ambulance chasing at all. The guy did this because it was the next level of escalation. He had complained within the company and nothing was done to curtail the abuse, or show any interest in supporting him.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Does anyone else find it odd that someone genuinely wanted to know about a gay person sex life? Surely if you're straight anyway, that's the last thing you'd want to know! 24k, I'm sure there's something I was slagged about under those protected categories while at work!

I'd have no problem knowing about it. I just wouldn't go prying about it. If stuff came up as such a topic around a table I'd like to think that my peers would be responsible enough to seriously engage. Wouldn't be afraid to jest, but sure if your around a table with peers, you'd know it's not intended to be abuse.

IM0

mango salsa wrote: »

It's compensation for losing his job

can you point me to the bit in that article that says that

Canis Lupus

mango salsa wrote: »

When did you choose to be heterosexual?

It was around 13 I think. Didn't you get the form to fill in at school?

philologos

OP: there's other stuff in that article that you haven't quoted which makes the decision even more justified.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, I'd feel vulnerable. Or what if like, the gay guy was discriminated against by not being allowed to marry someone making him further alienated. Do you reckon that would be awkward also?

If you want to make a thread on redefining marriage go do it. I'm going to discuss the topic at hand.

I don't believe anyone should be mistreated like that in the workplace or anywhere else.

Canis Lupus

philologos wrote: »

If you want to make a thread on redefining marriage go do it. I'm going to discuss the topic at hand.

I don't believe anyone should be mistreated like that in the workplace or anywhere else.

lulz, what about slaves?

I kid I kid.... back on topic.

deelite

Its often said to me " sure you're one of the lads" which I don't take any offence to - also I refer to one or two of the lads as one of the girls and they've never taken offence to that. Sexual preference has never come into it.

orestes

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It's his choice to be gay. Sounds like he was just overly sensitive to me. The world has gone mad.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

I know you're joking (or at least I hope you are) but is still a depressinlgy large amount of people who actually think like that.

Ghandee

I'd like to think of myself as a pretty liberal thinking individual, typical bloke's bloke, into beer fast cars and women.

I've numerous gay friends, male and female, some camp, some Butch, some show no obvious traits of their sexuality at all. Either way I'm not in the slightest bit interested in their sexual persuasions, it matters not IMO.

Disgraceful in this day and age that someone in a position of responsibility felt it appropriate to ridicule and take the piss, based on nothing other than the individuals sexual persuasion.

Let's hope the company concerned did the right thing and removed this cretin from his position.

Taking a wild guess here, but I'd doubt their sexuality inhibited them from doing the job they were paid to do. Once an employee carries out their duties, satisfactory, nothing else matters.

It really is that simple.

Duggy747

Bullying is bullying, the decision was right. Pack of numpties he was working with.

Noel Kinsella

He should have got twice that compensation IMO. What is 24k nowadays ? He will probably be on the dole because there are few jobs out there the money will be gone and the people who persecuted him are still in employment, THEY should have lost their jobs. Gay people are persecuted on this Island every day and mistreated and there is nothing done about it, its funny to some people. Its a pity its not taken as serious as racism as its on a par in my opinion.

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

If you want to make a thread on redefining marriage go do it. I'm going to discuss the topic at hand.

I don't believe anyone should be mistreated like that in the workplace or anywhere else.

Are we not discussing discrimination based on sexuality?

GalwayGuy2

“He stated in particular that she often made comments like ‘do you like taking it up the back passage’?”

Seems less trying to get to know a gay man, and more putting him on the spot and causing him embarrassment.

orestes

Ush1 wrote: »

Are we not discussing discrimination based on sexuality?

I thought we were discussing a case of a gay man being awarded compensation for being harassed in the work place over his sexual orientation?

They aren't the same thing.

Ush1

orestes wrote: »

I thought we were discussing a case of a gay man being awarded compensation for being harassed in the work place over his sexual orientation?

They aren't the same thing.

Yeah, well that sort of is sexuality based discrimination.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Are we not discussing discrimination based on sexuality?

Irrespective of whether someone agrees or disagrees with something someone does or believes in it doesn't give people a carte blanche to mistreat and abuse others at work or anywhere else. Indeed I've encountered someone being mistreated about sexuality before and I stood up for him.

Yes I have Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality but this doesn't absolve me from the responsibility to treat others with respect. I disagree, but that doesn't mean that I can't befriend those with whom I disagree.

This thread isn't about marriage so cop on and leave it out.

Canis Lupus

orestes wrote: »

I know you're joking (or at least I hope you are) but is still a depressinlgy large amount of people who actually think like that.

I got red carded for it My first red card for like..... ever....

Course I was joking.

orestes

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah, well that sort of is sexuality based discrimination.

But we're talking about bullying in the workplace over sexual orientation, not the whole other spectrum of sexual discrimination.

hyperborean

This is happening all over the place, hopefully this will give some confidence to anyone else going through it, nothing worse than when the playground comes to the workplace.

Hope he finds another job without fucking retards so he can get on with his life,

1ZRed

IM0 wrote: »

fair enough but why does that warrant compensation for him? I could understand if he has reports from psychologists/psychiatrists to back him up but otherwise meh

do you see what Im getting at, its a bit like the ambulance chaser USA mentality

It's still harassment. The same exact thing as harassing a black person for their skill colour.

L.Jenkins

It's a load of balls to discriminate against anyone for anything. I have a skin condition and was let go from my previous job, because it make others 'uncomfortable'. Adults can still be incredibly childish in this day and age over something that has no effect on them or beyond their control.

i will never understand why people do not like gay people , we are all the same and what 2 people do in the privacy of there own home with concent is there own business

if your not hurting someone go for it , thats my motto

im glad this man ordeal is over

Deleted User

Fair play to him for going through with this. That company will think twice about discriminating against its employees for anything now.

Deleted User wrote: »

i will never understand why people do not like gay people , we are all the same and what 2 people do in the privacy of there own home with concent is there own business

if your not hurting someone go for it , thats my motto

im glad this man ordeal is over

It's because gay people are perceived as "not normal". It seems to be society's knee jerk reaction to meet something against what is considered as the "norm" with fear, ignorance, hate, and sometimes anger. Could be anything though; homosexuality, mental problems, physical problems, etc. I reckon it'll be a long time before we just start accepting things and moving on.

Czarcasm

boneyarsebogman wrote: »

It's because gay people are perceived as "not normal". It seems to be society's knee jerk reaction to meet something against what is considered as the "norm" with fear, ignorance, hate, and sometimes anger.Could be anything though; homosexuality, mental problems, physical problems, etc. I reckon it'll be a long time before we just start accepting things and moving on.

Not to stray too far off the point but I don't think it's fair to cast aspertions on "society" as a whole when it's a minority of knuckle draggers actually have issues with anything outside their own bubble of what's considered normal in their view.

If racism, homophobia, sexism, etc were still "accepted as the norm" and people didn't question things, we'd still be as ignorant about the facts as we were only 50 years ago and society would never evolve.

Acceptance of an idea takes time, it doesn't just happen overnight, and forcing someone to "just accept that something is so", without any attempt to foster understanding and tolerance on BOTH sides, is naturally going to lead down a road to nowhere and leave both parties polarised in their opinions- some in the homosexual community will still dismiss the heterosexual community as a load of ignorant knuckle draggers, and some in the heterosexual community will still consider the homosexual community as a load of head up their own àrse tosspots, and seek to get a rise out of them for the purposes of their own entertainment.

I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying that's MY understanding of why it actually happens.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair play to him for going through with this. That company will think twice about discriminating against its employees for anything now.

Or hopefully reign in the mouthy, socially inept twats who think they're hilarious when they make someone the butt of the joke.
People still don't seem to understand that a bit of friendly slagging is only friendly when you're actually friends with the person.
If you don't know where the line is, you shouldn't be in a managerial position... yet they're all over the place for some reason.

danslevent

A gay guy used to work in the same business as me but left as the manager would always comment on his sexuality "The company gay" etc. I wish he had brought the case to court and gotten some justice.

The manager was eventually sacked for other reasons but it would have happened long before if the guy had spoken up, instead of just deciding to leave. No judgement there though, not everyone would like to bring things to court like that.

squod

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote: »

Or hopefully reign in the mouthy, socially inept twats who think they're hilarious when they make someone the butt of the joke.
People still don't seem to understand that a bit of friendly slagging is only friendly when you're actually friends with the person.
If you don't know where the line is, you shouldn't be in a managerial position... yet they're all over the place for some reason.

He said but. That's gay discrimination.

Penn

squod wrote: »

He said but. That's gay discrimination.

No it's not.

squod

Penn wrote: »

No it's not.

Oh yes it is..........:D

DonkeyStyle \o/

It would only have been discrimination if I'd italicised the "but" and added a winky smiley at the end.