Gay man gets €24,000 in discrimination case

Death and Taxes · 23-01-2013 09:10AM #1

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 · 23-01-2013 09:13AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:17AM

philologos wrote: »

That's horrible treatment that anyone rational should condemn.

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

Peregrinus · 23-01-2013 09:26AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:28AM

so youre angry he got compensation then

Peregrinus · 23-01-2013 09:30AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:37AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:40AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:41AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:48AM

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 · 23-01-2013 09:59AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:03AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:03AM

(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 · 23-01-2013 10:03AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:04AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:05AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:06AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:06AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:07AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:07AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:08AM

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

Dravokivich · 23-01-2013 10:09AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:10AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:10AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:10AM

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

philologos · 23-01-2013 10:12AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:13AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:14AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:17AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:17AM

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 · 23-01-2013 10:20AM

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

Gay man gets €24,000 in discrimination case

Comments