Transgender person wins compo for job interview

keano_afc

Spotted this intriguing story from north of the border this morning.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/debenhams-pays-9k-to-transgender-newry-woman-after-job-bias-case-38865784.html

The whole episode sounds outrageous, especially this bit:

"I left the interview room to walk through a canteen full of gawpers and starers, almost like people ready to burn the monster."

Isn't this setting a dangerous precedent? There seems to be absolutely no evidence of discrimination, apart from an "anonymous" letter. As far as I can see, Debenhams cut their losses and decided £9k was a small price to pay to avoid a court case and negative publicity.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

She was asked for her birth cert in the interview?

NSAman

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She was asked for her birth cert in the interview?

Yeah, that struck me as weird too.... who does that?

osarusan

Limelight seems like the Belfast place to be.

super_furry

Never ever heard of anyone being asked for birth cert at an interview, much less for a shop-floor interview. Something dodgy there alright.

seamus

keano_afc wrote: »

Isn't this setting a dangerous precedent? There seems to be absolutely no evidence of discrimination, apart from an "anonymous" letter. As far as I can see, Debenhams cut their losses and decided £9k was a small price to pay to avoid a court case and negative publicity.

The fact that Debenhams settled instead of fighting it would indicate that they found internal evidence of discrimination and wanted to make this go away as quickly as possible.

So, no, I don't think this sets any kind of precedent at all.

I'm not sure the "birth cert" thing is all that weird. Companies who hire a lot of front-line staff will often make offers very quickly, so they'll ask candidates to arrive with their documentation in hand. This saves any back-and-forths getting details for someone they want to hire.

In the Republic you're usually asked for a copy of your passport, but a birth cert will suffice too.

KevRossi

super_furry wrote: »

Never ever heard of anyone being asked for birth cert at an interview, much less for a shop-floor interview. Something dodgy there alright.

Yeah, birth cert is odd. I've had to produce a passport at the past two jobs to prove I have residency, they would not have accepted a birth cert. And I look and sound as west of Ireland as you can get.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

The fact that Debenhams settled instead of fighting it would indicate that they found internal evidence of discrimination and wanted to make this go away as quickly as possible.

So, no, I don't think this sets any kind of precedent at all.

I'm not sure the "birth cert" thing is all that weird. Companies who hire a lot of front-line staff will often make offers very quickly, so they'll ask candidates to arrive with their documentation in hand. This saves any back-and-forths getting details for someone they want to hire.

In the Republic you're usually asked for a copy of your passport, but a birth cert will suffice too.

They settled without accepting liability which could as much be read as “We don’t want to deal with inevitable bad publicity if we don’t settle”.

It’s possible the anonymous email was damning though. It may have contained insider information that lent it weight.

Apiarist

keano_afc wrote: »

...There seems to be absolutely no evidence of discrimination....

I don't know what is the tradition in NI, but in the Republic I had never had to show neither my birth cert, nor my passport during any job interview. Documents were taken care of later by the HR.

So, the evidence: (A) the anonymous e-mail, (B) the weird request of a birth cert, (C) the fact that she did not get the job even though she sold something during the interview, and (D) her own view that the interview was discriminatory.

As you said, Debenhams cut their losses. If this went before the court, she would have likely won more.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

victor8600 wrote: »

I don't know what is the tradition in NI, but in the Republic I had never had to show neither my birth cert, nor my passport during any job interview. Documents were taken care of later by the HR.

So, the evidence: (A) the anonymous e-mail, (B) the weird request of a birth cert, (C) the fact that she did not get the job even though she sold something during the interview, and (D) her own view that the interview was discriminatory.

As you said, Debenhams cut their losses. If this went before the court, she would have likely won more.

On this. There may have only been one position. Maybe somebody else also sold something during their interview.

The canteen comment sounds very overdramatic.

osarusan

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The canteen comment sounds very overdramatic.

Yeah, I can't see why anybody in the canteen would even know, seeing as how it was only revealed to the interviewer/interview team in the interview room a few minutes earlier.

Apiarist

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, I can't see why anybody in the canteen would even know, seeing as how it was only revealed to the interviewer/interview team in the interview room a few minutes earlier.

WhatsApp. Also the article does not say that only few minutes have passed. It might have been an hour just as well.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

On this. There may have only been one position. Maybe somebody else also sold something during their interview....

Well of course. A discrimination during a job interview is usually very difficult to prove, unless someone on the interview panel testifies that the person was not selected specifically because of her gender/race/address. Or if there is a procedure of submitting written conclusions from each interviewer (as done in my company) prior to voting on each candidate, but even then the company won't share those forms filed for other candidates.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, I can't see why anybody in the canteen would even know, seeing as how it was only revealed to the interviewer/interview team in the interview room a few minutes earlier.

And she looks very womanly. Not an obvious former man at all. I absolutely guarantee I would not have even looked up from whatever lunch slop I was chowing. And some people looking might have just been thinking “Who’s the noob?”.

keano_afc

The comment from Joanne Brown :eek:

https://www.facebook.com/belfasttelegraph/posts/10157641367168819?comment_id=10157641818748819&notif_id=1579178866058606&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

cruizer101

victor8600 wrote: »

WhatsApp. Also the article does not say that only few minutes have passed. It might have been an hour just as well.

How would it be an hour she said:

I left the interview room to walk through a canteen full of gawpers and starers, almost like people ready to burn the monster.

She literally walked out of interview and through the canteen, I would hazard a guess she may have felt people were staring but in reality they wern't. Whenever we feel self concious for any reason they think anyone who even glances at them is staring at them judgingly.

suicide_circus

do they have to give them the job now or is it just the 9k?

keano_afc

suicide_circus wrote: »

do they have to give them the job now or is it just the 9k?

Also, is there anything to stop this person doing this again?

Apiarist

keano_afc wrote: »

Also, is there anything to stop this person doing this again?

Give her a good non-discriminating job?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I often wonder if these job discrimination cases end up being counterproductive for the person pursuing them, even if they win. Well, the ones that attract the media’s attention anyway. Their name is then out there and another prospective employer might think “Hassle” and not even call them to interview if they google people before doing so. I supposed they can have their name removed from searches.

marieholmfan

cruizer101 wrote: »

How would it be an hour she said:

I left the interview room to walk through a canteen full of gawpers and starers, almost like people ready to burn the monster.

She literally walked out of interview and through the canteen, I would hazard a guess she may have felt people were staring but in reality they wern't. Whenever we feel self concious for any reason they think anyone who even glances at them is staring at them judgingly.

I'm not especially pro trans rights but the change in tone when she handed over the documents is credible.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I often wonder if these job discrimination cases end up being counterproductive for the person pursuing them, even if they win. Well, the ones that attract the media’s attention anyway. Their name is then out there and another prospective employer might think “Hassle” and not even call them to interview if they google people before doing so. I supposed they can have their name removed from searches.

Eva Moore?
Sure there'd be dozens of about the right age.

riffmongous

keano_afc wrote: »

The comment from Joanne Brown :eek:

https://www.facebook.com/belfasttelegraph/posts/10157641367168819?comment_id=10157641818748819&notif_id=1579178866058606&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

Not available anymore

Strumms

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She was asked for her birth cert in the interview?

If I was asked for that document during an interview I’d walk out. I’m not giving that to any employer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

marieholmfan wrote: »

I'm not especially pro trans rights but the change in tone when she handed over the documents is credible.



Eva Moore?
Sure there'd be dozens of about the right age.

Ava Moore.

We only have her word that the tone changed. The canteen comment makes me doubt her.

padd b1975

suicide_circus wrote: »

do they have to give them the job now or is it just the 9k?

Money makes the boo-hoos go away don't you know.

Apiarist

keano_afc wrote: »

Basically said .... Moore was caught red handed.

1) Pretty poor deflection attempt from the topic.
2) Is "Joanne Brown" your FB alias by any chance?

padd b1975

victor8600 wrote: »

1) Pretty poor deflection attempt from the topic.
2) Is "Joanne Brown" your FB alias by any chance?

Pretty good example of dishonesty and criminality, not exactly the type of traits a potential employer would be looking for, particularly in retail.

suicide_circus

cant see the joanne brown thing, what did it say?

Apiarist

suicide_circus wrote: »

cant see the joanne brown thing, what did it say?

I took a screenshot

suicide_circus

victor8600 wrote: »

I took a screenshot

something you dont like was it?

keano_afc

suicide_circus wrote: »

cant see the joanne brown thing, what did it say?

https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1217773291886256129

Its shown in this thread

suicide_circus

keano_afc wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1217773291886256129

Its shown in this thread

ah right. i suppose that's about as plausible as the anonymous email.

seamus

Tbh, there's a lot of speculation here. Nobody here knows how long she was in the interview room. Nobody here knows what the reception inside or outside the room was like. Nobody here knows the content of that anonymous email.

All we have is her story, and the fact that Debenham's declined to deny it. "No liability" is a legal declaration, it doesn't mean that they didn't do anything wrong.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. To people claiming "she did it for the money", I'd imagine £9k isn't worth the sudden publicity and abuse she'll receive from the scumbags on Twitter.

keano_afc

suicide_circus wrote: »

ah right. i suppose that's about as plausible as the anonymous email.

Stupid to post if its not true though, especially as the subject of the allegation has already proven how litigious they are.

9k is worth it to debenhams to make it go away id think

""What we have here is a blatant case of discrimination where a young woman went for a job, she performed well and at the end of the day, she didn't get the job," he said.

"We've got a settlement but she said this is a bittersweet thing, (but) Debenhams are going to work with the Equality Commission."

fairly ludicrous statement tho. nothing blatant about not getting a job even after a good interview, and everything else is subjective.

file under dubious af tbh

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

seamus wrote: »

Tbh, there's a lot of speculation here. Nobody here knows how long she was in the interview room. Nobody here knows what the reception inside or outside the room was like. Nobody here knows the content of that anonymous email.

All we have is her story, and the fact that Debenham's declined to deny it. "No liability" is a legal declaration, it doesn't mean that they didn't do anything wrong.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. To people claiming "she did it for the money", I'd imagine £9k isn't worth the sudden publicity and abuse she'll receive from the scumbags on Twitter.

Of course it’s speculation. That’s pretty obvious. And you partook.

AndrewJRenko

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ava Moore.

We only have her word that the tone changed. The canteen comment makes me doubt her.

'We' don't have anything. We don't adjudicate the case. The Equality Commission looked at all the facts of the case, not just those that appear in a short press article, and made a decision to support this person to reach a settlement with Debenhams.

keano_afc wrote: »

Stupid to post if its not true though, especially as the subject of the allegation has already proven how litigious they are.

If it was stupid of the OP to post it, how stupid was it of you to repost it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I often wonder if these job discrimination cases end up being counterproductive for the person pursuing them, even if they win. Well, the ones that attract the media’s attention anyway. Their name is then out there and another prospective employer might think “Hassle” and not even call them to interview if they google people before doing so. I supposed they can have their name removed from searches.

The CEO of the Irish operation of one of the big UK retailers had a previous, fairly high-profile, well-reported case for unfair dismissal against a previous employer here. It didn't seem to be counterproductive for him.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

'We' don't have anything. We don't adjudicate the case.

Thanks. I didn’t realise that until you just pointed it out. Phew. Next time I’ll try to remember that I’m on a discussion forum.

suicide_circus

seamus wrote: »

Seems pretty straightforward to me. To people claiming "she did it for the money", I'd imagine £9k isn't worth the sudden publicity and abuse she'll receive from the scumbags on Twitter.

or the fact they are virtually unemployable while the articles are still searchable on google

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

or the fact they are virtually unemployable while the articles are still searchable on google

Exaggerate much?

seamus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Exaggerate much?

It'll be fraught for her, sure. Background checks in Ireland involve googling employees (no, really) and looking up social media accounts. Incredible the stuff people put up about themselves online.

For front line retail positions, it probably won't come up. But it easily could in other jobs.

AndrewJRenko

seamus wrote: »

It'll be fraught for her, sure. Background checks in Ireland involve googling employees (no, really) and looking up social media accounts. Incredible the stuff people put up about themselves online.

For front line retail positions, it probably won't come up. But it easily could in other jobs.

For some jobs, nosey HR people might go poking around on Facebook, kidding themselves that it is important. But sure I guess it beats real work.


But to say this makes a person 'virtually unemployable' is just a slight exaggeration.

Strumms

seamus wrote: »

It'll be fraught for her, sure. Background checks in Ireland involve googling employees (no, really) and looking up social media accounts. Incredible the stuff people put up about themselves online.

For front line retail positions, it probably won't come up. But it easily could in other jobs.

I knew a recruiting manager and he did this. He showed me one CV which looked bullet proof, well written cover letter too... and then the social media account which was mainly a young fella falling around pîssed, and giving out yards about ‘the brits’.. (the company head office is in Manchester) so it was a ‘GO’ to ‘NO’ in a minute...

I’ve never been involved in hiring people but I could be tempted as many would be to browse...private up !

Eric Cartman

Strumms wrote: »

I knew a recruiting manager and he did this. He showed me one CV which looked bullet proof, well written cover letter too... and then the social media account which was mainly a young fella falling around pîssed, and giving out yards about ‘the brits’.. (the company head office is in Manchester) so it was a ‘GO’ to ‘NO’ in a minute...

I’ve never been involved in hiring people but I could be tempted as many would be to browse...private up !

+1 , in this case most employers are sick of this kind of 'woke' thinking. I can't think of a faster way to get your cv binned these days than doing a gender studies masters or similar, in terms of background checks, multiple recruiters and employers have illustrated to me cases where having your twitter account bio state pronouns or retweeting any of this faux outrage / woke culture crap will have you at the bottom of the interview list .

most employers are not recruiting politicians, they do not want 'culture shift' , they don't want HR's job made harder, they want a good fit to their existing culture which doesn't have these hangups.

Mr.burgess

wouldnt we all gawp if your man from telly bingo stumbled across the canteen in stilletos

ILoveYourVibes

Good for her for standing up for her rights.

padd b1975

Mr.burgess wrote: »

wouldnt we all gawp if your man from telly bingo stumbled across the canteen in stilletos

That Panti lad managed to turn a similar experience into a nice little earner.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Strumms wrote: »

I knew a recruiting manager and he did this. He showed me one CV which looked bullet proof, well written cover letter too... and then the social media account which was mainly a young fella falling around pîssed, and giving out yards about ‘the brits’.. (the company head office is in Manchester) so it was a ‘GO’ to ‘NO’ in a minute...

I’ve never been involved in hiring people but I could be tempted as many would be to browse...private up !

Aye, it seems commonplace. And is quick and easy to check. Nobody ask me for a peer-reviewed study cuz I don’t got one. This is purely anecdotal but I have various friends and family members who are involved in interviewing and figuring out who to interview and they all say that they google prospective candidates. I’m surprised that anyone would be surprised that it happens. They all said that you would be amazed at how much information there can be about a person online.

Peregrinus

victor8600 wrote: »

Well of course. A discrimination during a job interview is usually very difficult to prove, unless someone on the interview panel testifies that the person was not selected specifically because of her gender/race/address. Or if there is a procedure of submitting written conclusions from each interviewer (as done in my company) prior to voting on each candidate, but even then the company won't share those forms filed for other candidates.

When there is evidence of discrimination during the interview it most usually takes the form of "they asked an irrelevant question about one of the prohibited grounds". E.g. if, in the interview, I ask you how you would juggle the competing demands of motherhood and career, that strongly suggests a discriminatory attitude to female candidates who are mothers, or are of childbearing age.

And this, I think, is where Debenhams fell down here. It seems that they asked for the candidates' birth certificates during the interview stage, which implies that the information in the birth certificate - age, gender, etc - was going to be material to the decision about hiring, which of course it should not be. If they needed to ask for birth certs at all (and I'm not clear why they did) they should only have asked the successful candidates for them, after offering them the jobs.

Hence the settlement.

One eyed Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

And this, I think, is where Debenhams fell down here. It seems that they asked for the candidates' birth certificates during the interview stage, which implies that the information in the birth certificate - age, gender, etc - was going to be material to the decision about hiring, which of course it should not be. If they needed to ask for birth certs at all (and I'm not clear why they did) they should only have asked the successful candidates for them, after offering them the jobs.

Hence the settlement.

I don’t know that’s where the discrimination arose to be honest. It wouldn’t be unusual that candidates are asked to bring a form of identification with them when they are invited for interview. I think where the discrimination more likely arose was a rather unfortunate gaffe on the part of the interviewer when they examined the form of identification they were presented with, and it didn’t correlate with their expectations of the person they were interviewing.

I think in the circumstances the way they are presented in the article that the candidates were put in a customer facing situation as part of the selection and interview process, and the candidates who were selected for hiring, the paperwork was done as somewhat of a formality afterwards, and that’s where the incident may have occurred which led to the candidate assuming (rightly as it appears), that they had been discriminated against based upon their sex.

Peregrinus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know that’s where the discrimination arose to be honest. It wouldn’t be unusual that candidates are asked to bring a form of identification with them when they are invited for interview.

For what it's worth, I have never been asked to bring a form of identification to a job interview.

Plus, a birth certificate is not a form of identification. It may show that a person called Peregrinus was born on X date at Y place, but it does nothing to show that the person now showing the birth certificate to you is Peregrinus.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think where the discrimination more likely arose was a rather unfortunate gaffe on the part of the interviewer when they examined the form of identification they were presented with, and it didn’t correlate with their expectations of the person they were interviewing.

I think in the circumstances the way they are presented in the article that the candidates were put in a customer facing situation as part of the interview, and the candidates who were selected for hiring, the paperwork was done as somewhat of a formality afterwards, and that’s where the incident may have occurred which led to the candidate assuming (rightly as it appears), that they had been discriminated against based upon their sex.

Yeah. If they only asked for birth certs from the successful candidates and then, having seen the birth cert, withdrew the job offer, that's a slam-dunk case of discrimination right there.

But if they asked for birth certs from all the candidates before deciding who to hire, that strongly implies that the information in the birth certs was going to affect the hiring decision, and since the information largely consists of protected grounds (age, gender, etc) that's also a pretty bad look.

So, poor practice on Debenham's part, and they wisely settled this case since they were on a hiding to nothing. 9K is cheap at the price; the bigger cost will be extra training for HR and management in best practice recruitment procedures, since they clearly aren't competent in that regard at present.

baldbear

NSAman wrote: »

Yeah, that struck me as weird too.... who does that?

Someone who discriminates?