Forced to Discriminate!

billgibney

Hi, My employer has told us that we have to treat men and women differently from now on, They still believe that "women are the fairer sex".
There are no medical, religious or sexual grounds for this discrimination but it is very blatant.

If they want to get sued by men that's their problem but if I carry out their policy could I be held personally liable?

Thanks

johnnyskeleton

Not legal advice , but if you feel uncomfortable doing work for them then quit

billgibney

In an ideal world maybe but not really an option with mortgage, college fees etc. I should also mention that it's in a state job!

coylemj

OP, are you referring to positive (sometimes known as reverse) discrimination to boost the number of women in senior positions or is it something else?

Since we have no idea exactly what policy you're being asked to implement, it's impossible to say whether you could be held liable (for what?) or not.

Bepolite

Sounds more like the hairy arsed blokes have been told to being the delivery.

Greenmachine

coylemj wrote: »

OP, are you referring to positive (sometimes known as reverse) discrimination to boost the number of women in senior positions or is it something else?

Since we have no idea exactly what policy you're being asked to implement, it's impossible to say whether you could be held liable (for what?) or not.

Positive discirmination is still discrimination.

billgibney

It's not a positive discrimination issue, more to do with a service provided

Pro Hoc Vice

Greenmachine wrote: »

Positive discirmination is still discrimination.

Discrimination is not illegal, but certain types of discrimination are. Even certain illegal activities are rendered legal in certain circumstances.

A couple of examples, firming a employee because he is gay, is discrimination. It is also illegal, but certain organisations (religious ethos schools) are excluded from the law. Men only golf clubs are not discrimination.

The Equal Status Act 2000, as amended by the Equality Act 2004, does also allow favourable treatment of certain persons. Section 14 says,

"(b) preferential treatment or the taking of positive measures which are bona fide intended to—

(i) promote equality of opportunity for persons who are, in relation to other persons, disadvantaged or who have been or are likely to be unable to avail themselves of the same opportunities as those other persons, or

(ii) cater for the special needs of persons, or a category of persons, who, because of their circumstances, may require facilities, arrangements, services or assistance not required by persons who do not have those special needs."

The above section has been amended, but the general thrust is still there.

Pro Hoc Vice

billgibney wrote: »

It's not a positive discrimination issue, more to do with a service provided

See here http://www.equality.ie/en/ there are links to the legislation, and they may be able to answer a specific question in a factual scenario.

Manach

So long as we keep telling ourselves it is okay for the Government to interfere to such an extent in people's civil inter-party arrangements, it is all grand.

billgibney

I was on the equality site and other siteas well but none of them answer my question; am I as an individual held accountable if I discriminate against a man?
Seems simple enough question but can't find an answer anywhere.

coylemj

billgibney wrote: »

am I as an individual held accountable if I discriminate against a man?
Seems simple enough question but can't find an answer anywhere.

It may sound like a simple question to you but what does and does not constitutes 'discrimination' depends on what form it takes.

Consider the following.....

Can I discriminate against a man by forbidding him to use the ladies' toilet?

Is it OK to discriminate against a man by not considering him for the part of Eliza Doolittle in a production of 'My Fair Lady'?


Absurd examples I agree but we have nothing to go on so how can anyone answer your question?

Bepolite

coylemj wrote: »

It may sound like a simple question to you but what does and does not constitutes 'discrimination' depends on what form it takes.

Consider the following.....

Can I discriminate against a man by forbidding him to use the ladies' toilet?

Is it OK to discriminate against a man by not considering him for the part of Eliza Doolittle in a production of 'My Fair Lady'?


Absurd examples I agree but we have nothing to go on so how can anyone answer your question?

I've visions of Boston Legal... Give us a black superman!

wexie

billgibney wrote: »

Hi, My employer has told us that we have to treat men and women differently from now on, They still believe that "women are the fairer sex".

Back when I was a little nipper I was told it's a somewhat archaic concept of chivalry.

billgibney wrote: »

It's not a positive discrimination issue, more to do with a service provided

Really hard to say whether or not you have a case here without stating what the actual service you're talking about is. However I'd imagine if you follow your employees guidelines if it ever comes back to you it'd be handy to have a copy of those guidelines to refer to.

However with the lack of provided information it could be something as silly as there being a mirror in the womens bathroom and not in the mens. Or women being provided with sanitary pads? Free manicures? etc. etc.

You'll really have to give some more information.

billgibney

OK, I'm employed by the dept of justice and we've been instructed that when bringing prisoners to and from courts, prisons, hospital appointments etc. that female prisoners are not to be handcuffed in future as its degrading but male prisoners are still to be handcuffed.

wexie

billgibney wrote: »

OK, I'm employed by the dept of justice and we've been instructed that when bringing prisoners to and from courts, prisons, hospital appointments etc. that female prisoners are not to be handcuffed in future as its degrading but male prisoners are still to be handcuffed.

Hmm....I could see a point in making the difference however not for those reasons. Presumably if the reason is that 'it's degrading' surely that would go for male AND female prisoners? If the reasons given were likely level of violence, escape risks etc. etc. then it could be a valid point perhaps. (Although I'd say some of the female ones you're transporting may well still be vicious).

Are you comfortable transporting them without cuffs?

Personally I wouldn't worry in the least about whether or not I'm leaving myself open to discrimination charges. I'd be more worried about what would happen to me if one of them decided to gauge out one of my eyes and legged it.

On a more practical note, if you're genuinely worried about accusations of discrimination, do you have any communications from your employer stating this new policy?

If you don't you could always point out (in writing) that you're not comfortable with the new policy and keep a record of the reply.

If I was your manager I'd be likely to tell you to handcuff women when you feel an operational need to do so** ie. if you're transporting someone that gives you reason to believe they'd be better in cuffs, leaving you no better (or clearer) off however it would give you the option to sidestep any accusations by handcuffing everybody.

(**minds out of gutters please folks)

coylemj

Agree with above post, the decision to 'cuff or not should be made based on the perceived threat of violence/propensity to make an escape bid, not on the gender of the prisoner.

OP, you have a good representative body/trade union, what do they advise?

To answer your original question, there is no way that you could be held personally liable if implementing a prison service policy. Anyone taking an action would probably name you as a co-defendant along with the prison service and the minister but ultimately you would be indemnified as a public servant.

Pro Hoc Vice

I'm not really sure that the a Equality legislation covers the treatment of persons in custody. If it does the act allows "positive discrimination" in certain circumstances. I believe Section 14 (b) (ii) may cover this situation.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0014.html#sec14

In any event vicarious liability or more likely indemnity would protect a employee. The Acts are aimed in reality at business not employees.

billgibney

Thanks for the replies, I can't see any circumstances where positive discrimination would apply as the purpose of positive discrimination is to level the playing field.
A few years ago females had 1/3 remission and males 1/4 and an equality case was taken so now all prisoners Ger 1/4 remission.
While generally female prisoners are better behaved under equality law you can't generalise, I couldn't say all travellers are thieves or all blacks are illegal immigrants for example.
I imagine some solicitors will get rich from this

Pro Hoc Vice

billgibney wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I can't see any circumstances where positive discrimination would apply as the purpose of positive discrimination is to level the playing field.
A few years ago females had 1/3 remission and males 1/4 and an equality case was taken so now all prisoners Ger 1/4 remission.
While generally female prisoners are better behaved under equality law you can't generalise, I couldn't say all travellers are thieves or all blacks are illegal immigrants for example.
I imagine some solicitors will get rich from this

I have never heard of the case you mention. To the best of my knowledge the 2007 rules removed the difference. If you know a reference to the case I would be interested.

Cody Pomeray

Perhaps the poster is thinking of (Priory Hall's/ the Republican activist, depending on your outlook) Tom McFeely's European case challenging the UK authorities on prison conditions.

McFeely challenged the different treatment of men and women, although he was unsuccessful.

I do not know of any similar Irish case.

billgibney

When I was in training in the 90s remission was 1/4 for everyone, we were told it was changed due to an equality case.

Pro Hoc Vice

billgibney wrote: »

When I was in training in the 90s remission was 1/4 for everyone, we were told it was changed due to an equality case.

If there was a change back then, and was due to a case, it would not have been taken under equality legislation, as it did not exist till early 2000's. If a case was taken back then it may have been under the constitution guarantee of equality before the law. But I have never heard of a case.