The Lemon Fool

Was out shopping today and spotted two job adverts in the windows of shops. One said "Shop assistant required, must be male", in a vape shop and the other "Shop assistant required, preferably male" in and independent electrical shop. The shops appeared to be related enterprises and the e-mail address was the same on both adverts.

Are these notices legal? I could see no reason that either post needed to be "male".

Just idle interest really - I was annoyed enough at the time to take a photo of the "must be male " advert but I'm curious as to what one could/should do.

J

So where does that leave the Chineke Foundation?

http://www.chi-chinwanoku.com/chineke-foundation/

which recruits BME (black and minority ethnic) musicians

newlyretired

newlyretired wrote:So where does that leave the Chineke Foundation?

The laws are worded so that in practice discrimination against white males is legal. Something about "promoting minorities or ethnic diversity" usually covers it.

newlyretired wrote:So where does that leave the Chineke Foundation?

http://www.chi-chinwanoku.com/chineke-foundation/

which recruits BME (black and minority ethnic) musicians

It's my understanding that there are exceptions carved out to the anti-discrimination laws where the nature of the employment specifically demands a particular race or gender. So for instance, casting for Othello can legally ask for a black male actor. A TV show set in China would look odd if it cast an all-black cast, and so on.

Likewise strip clubs can ask for young attractive females. In the US a man sued the "Hooters" chain of restaurants for rejecting him as a wait-person on the grounds that he wouldn't look good in a low-cut tank top and short shorts. He lost his case.

A musical band featuring ethnic music should reasonably be able to ask for someone with that ethnic and cultural background.

The original post is fine, but can we keep the discussion on topic i.e. the legality (or otherwise) of the advertisement in question rather than the appropriateness of current legislation i.e. refrain from entering into political discussion or debate.

Thank you
Clariman

newlyretired wrote:So where does that leave the Chineke Foundation?

http://www.chi-chinwanoku.com/chineke-foundation/

which recruits BME (black and minority ethnic) musicians

newlyretired

I haven't looked at what they do, but they will likely fall under

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/159

The ability to favour protected characteristics is quite limited.

ap8889 wrote:Definitely unlawful. Gender is a protected characteristic under Equality Act 2010, so these job adverts are prima facie direct discrimination.

As to what you can do, I would take a photo of the ad, inform the advertiser of their breach, inform the Equality commission, and if there is no alteration then engineer a job application from a female to cement a future claim for discrimination, although this is no longer required following a recent ECJ ruling, it sure helps in your claim.

There is a lucrative cottage industry of professional claimants waiting to pounce on mistakes like this, make sure you get yours when you spot one.

Then it's a letter before claim, and hopefully profit, because let's face it they haven't a legal leg to stand on so must fold and offer to settle.

Apart from the fact that this is inherently fraudulent and morally repugnant it could also seriously backfire on the "professional claimant" (and I would personally hope that it would).

The Tribunals are well aware of the "lucrative cottage industry" to which you refer, and I suspect it's not quite as lucrative as it allegedly once was.

The leading case is Keane v Investigo & Ors UKEAT/0389/09/SM, where a 51 year old accountant applied for jobs that were clearly aimed at newly qualified accountants, and when she failed to get an interview she filed a claim of age discrimination.

Fortunately, several victims of her attempted fraud had the cojones to fight her to a hearing. Her claims were dismissed and, best of all, she was ordered to pay the costs, estimated at £50,000, on the basis that she never wanted the jobs in the first place, and was just trying to screw the potential employers.

She appealed, and her appeal was thrown out, which would have meant her having to pay even more costs - excellent!

In another similar case involving a Mr John Berry, the Employment Judge remarked:

"... the purpose of the Regulations is not to provide a source of income for persons who complain of arguably discriminatory advertisements for job vacancies which they have in fact no wish or intention to fill, and that those who try to exploit the Regulations for financial gain in such circumstances are liable, as happened to the claimant in the Investigo case, to find themselves facing a liability for costs."

More information here - http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/ ... x?i=ed4637

Well thank goodness for these Daniels! There are enough ambulance-chasers around without everyone else inventing their own version. (CK not included in either category of course).

ap8889 wrote:A professional HR operation is a front-line shield against predators in my experience.

Yes, but also a waste of time.
If I want** to employ someone of a certain age or gender or colour, that's what I'll do, and all other applicants are wasting their time. In the real world, that's how it is, isn't it?
And when HR send them through they're wasting my time interviewing the non-starters. Although I have surprised myself by employing outside my initial prejudices, occasionally.

The ad cited by the OP may be, OK, is, illegal but should not be.

And as for positive discrimination, better not get me started on that.

V8

** wrong tense as I'm now retired.

ap8889 wrote:if there is no alteration then engineer a job application from a female to cement a future claim for discrimination, although this is no longer required following a recent ECJ ruling, it sure helps in your claim.

There is a lucrative cottage industry of professional claimants waiting to pounce on mistakes like this, make sure you get yours when you spot one.

This is incorrect. The courts have ruled that job applications set up just to catch this sort of thing DO NOT succeed in discrimination claims as there is no genuine discrimination.

I can't recall the name of the case but will Google and see if I can find it.

The advert is unlawful though.

Mel

I see CK found the case

Here's more detail:

https://andersonstrathern.co.uk/news-in ... imination/

Mel

Although I have surprised myself by employing outside my initial prejudices, occasionally.

Which proves the need for legislation to at least force people to receive applications from those they might not have considered in the first place and maybe discover that the person they weren't looking for is actually just the person they really need!

As a woman I'd say that employment legislation has not solved all career problems for women but it has made a tremendous improvement in the training and job options open to women. When I was at school in the fifties/sixties teachers in the second rate schools I attended seemed to spend a lot of time telling girls there was no point in aiming for this or that because they would not be admitted to the course/would not be able to find a post. Legislation did not cure all problems but it certainly helped.

If I passed a shop advertising for male only or female only applicants, I would immediately contact the local newspaper, the local Chamber of Commerce, the FSB (of which I am a member) and seek their help in naming, shaming and shall we say 'advising' the employer concerned.

1nv35t wrote:They could claim that the adverts were specifically looking to attract individuals with roots in the capital of the Maldives (Male island).

I know this is supposed to be amusing but that would also be unlawful because you are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of race*, and nationality is part of the definition of race in the Equality Act.

(*there is an exception for matters of national security, such as spies!)

Mel