Transgender person wins compo for job interview

bucketybuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

Thats incredibly naive. It takes literally seconds to do a google search and its an incredibly easy way to get a data point on somebody you will soon need to make a decision on.

Forget about "HR people", any manager in any size of company sitting at their desk looking through CV's will throw the name into Google just to see what comes back. Maybe its a generic name and nothing stands out, grand so. But maybe the first result is a link to a court case where they brought a case against an employer...

I once did a google search based on a CV I was sent, took about 30 seconds to see that the guy had a conviction for drug dealing. I've also checked people and they had the whole hardcore party animal thing going on. These are the sorts of things worth knowing before I decide to employ somebody so frankly, anybody not taking 30 seconds to do a google search is probably being foolish.

Peregrinus

Her case was not that she was discriminated on the ground of sex, but that she was discriminated against on the grounds of gender reassigment - in other words, she was denied the job not because she was a woman, but because she was a trans woman. Under Article 4A of the Order you link to, it is unlawful to treat a person less favourably on the ground that they intend to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment.

dvdman1

marieholmfan wrote: »

Girl not guy.

No...a man in my eyes and many more...i refuse to acknowledge him as a woman.

charlietheminxx

dvdman1 wrote: »

No...a man in my eyes and many more...i refuse to acknowledge him as a woman.

Aren't you great? :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Peregrinus wrote: »

Her case was not that she was discriminated on the ground of sex, but that she was discriminated against on the grounds of gender reassigment - in other words, she was denied the job not because she was a woman, but because she was a trans woman. Under Article 4A of the Order you link to, it is unlawful to treat a person less favourably on the ground that they intend to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment.

Under NI legislation the candidate is legally regarded as female, similar to the way it works here. They refer to acquired gender similar to the way in which Irish legislation recognises that when a person is granted a gender recognition certificate, they are legally recognised as the sex they identify as from that point on -


Gender recognition

Your rights

The Gender Reassignment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 amends the Sex Discrimination Order to make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of gender reassignment (sex change) in employment and training.

The Sex Discrimination (Amendment of Legislation) Regulations 2008 came into operation in Northern Ireland, and introduced protection from direct discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment in the provision of goods, facilities, services or premises.


It’s based upon UK legislation -


Gender reassignment is one of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, section 7. A person has this protected characteristic if they are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone the process of reassigning their gender. The Equality Act 2010 therefore, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits discrimination against transsexual people in the provision of employment and in the provision of services. The 2010 Act also prohibits discrimination based on perception
– so employers and service providers should not treat others less favourably because they mistakenly think that the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone the process of reassigning their gender. Further information can be found on equality matters on GOV.UK and the Equality and Human Rights Commission website.

...

Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful discrimination for a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment – a transsexual person, or a person mistakenly perceived to be a transsexual person – to receive unfavourable treatment because of that in employment or in the provision of services (except in some very limited circumstances).

Once a person has been granted a full GRC they have the same rights and responsibilities as their legally acquired gender. So for instance, an employer must treat a transsexual woman with a GRC in the same way as other female employees when it comes to pay. As the same Act prohibits discrimination because of sex, the employer must also treat that person, as a woman, and in a way which is no less favourably than a man.


General guide to the UK Act


I’m not aware of their intentions or their status as regards their acquired gender, but they are regarded in law as female, and so it’s entirely reasonable to conclude they were claiming to have been discriminated against on the basis of their sex. Here’s a better link than the newspaper article in the opening post though -


Transgender woman settles case against Debenhams


Ava said: “I was really disappointed that I didn’t get the job. I thought I had completed a good interview which had included interacting with customers on the sales floor. This job was exactly what I’d been looking for and I thought that I’d be really good at it. However, during the course of the interview I felt a change in the atmosphere after I provided my birth certificate which discloses my gender history and the fact that I am a transgender woman.”


The change in atmosphere having presented their birth certificate is what appears to have been contentious, not the fact that they provided their birth certificate. To my reading that implies they didn’t think there would be an issue with their birth certificate and presented it willingly, which implies they were familiar with the expectation. Their claim of a change of atmosphere in the room is entirely based upon their own perception, as is their claim that they were the victim of discrimination.


EDIT: Here's a better explanation of the avove:

The Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 clarify Northern Ireland law relating to gender reassignment. They are a measure to prevent discrimination against transsexual people on the grounds of sex in pay and treatment in employment and vocational training. This reflects a ruling by the European Court of Justice that the dismissal of an employee undergoing gender reassignment is contrary to the European Equal Treatment Directive. The UK (and all Member States) is obliged to implement such European law.

The effect of the Regulations is to insert into the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 a provision which extends the Order insofar as it refers to employment and vocational training, to include discrimination on gender reassignment grounds. Thus, for the purposes of employment and vocational training, discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment constitutes discrimination on grounds of sex, and is contrary to the Sex Discrimination Order. Employers who breach the Sex Discrimination Order in respect of discrimination on gender reassignment grounds will be liable in the same manner they would, for example, for discrimination against a woman on the grounds of sex.

Detailed information about the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 can be found in the Department of Economic Development's publication: A Guide to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

A Guide to the Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999

It should also be noted that their claims as to any evidence of their proficiency during the interview process and suitability for the role, was also based upon their own perception. The interviewers may well have been of a different point of view, and the unsuccessful candidate could have been unsuccessful for any number of legitimate and entirely justifiable reasons.

Winning_Stroke

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

Who believes this sh!te.

I'd say yer man is having a good laugh though, 9k for flunking an interview. A lucrative career.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+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.

It's a shame that you're not posting under your real name, because many employers would be delighted to be able to exclude people with such short-sighted, narrow-minded traits as those on display here.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm quite ready to believe that the collection of birth certs from applicants wasn't intended to facilitate discrmination - that somebody had the half-arsed idea of doing the employment checks at this stage of the process so as to avoid offering jobs to candidates who, in fact, weren't entitled to work in the UK, and they thought of the collection of birth certs as an aspect of this. But they overlooked the fact that (a) you dont need to do an employment check on someone unless you do in fact want to hire someone; (b) taking birth certificate information into account in a hiring process looks bad, from an equal treatment point of view, and (c) it creates real temptations/opportunities for discrimination of this kind actually to be practised.

Any HR person who doesn't already realise the a, b and c noted above should really be looking for a career change.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All very true, and I don’t think it’s unusual either that someone isn’t aske specifically for their birth certificate, but rather a form of identification (whether it be their birth certificate, their drivers license or passport is generally up to the candidates themselves), which they are requested to bring with them on the day.

A birth cert is not photo ID. It does not serve the same purpose.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ye wha?

I have never heard of anyone being asked for a passport or birth cert at interview

It is a standard requirement for any public sector interview to bring photo ID.

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats incredibly naive. It takes literally seconds to do a google search and its an incredibly easy way to get a data point on somebody you will soon need to make a decision on.

Forget about "HR people", any manager in any size of company sitting at their desk looking through CV's will throw the name into Google just to see what comes back. Maybe its a generic name and nothing stands out, grand so. But maybe the first result is a link to a court case where they brought a case against an employer...

I once did a google search based on a CV I was sent, took about 30 seconds to see that the guy had a conviction for drug dealing. I've also checked people and they had the whole hardcore party animal thing going on. These are the sorts of things worth knowing before I decide to employ somebody so frankly, anybody not taking 30 seconds to do a google search is probably being foolish.

It is incredibly naive to think that you get a feel for anyone with a 30 second Google. This will lead you down the path of recruiting the drug dealers/party animals who know how to lock down their social media.

If you don't want drug dealers and party animals, you need other ways of checking.

Donald Trump

KevRossi wrote: »

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.

Ok. Don't get upset. But we need to tell you something.

That was to check your papers and status for living in Dublin. There is a secret database for people West of the Shannon which records the few that have assessed as somehow having been trained to become civilised enough to handle living in the big schmoke.

Donald Trump

Mr.burgess wrote: »

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

I'd save me gawping for the statuesque blonde with big boobs and a tight dress.

But different strokes for different folks as they say (pun somewhat intended).


On a serious note, seems like a smash and grab by the interviewee. A scam to rip people off for a handy few quid and then tell everyone "oh look at poor me"

bucketybuck

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is incredibly naive to think that you get a feel for anyone with a 30 second Google. This will lead you down the path of recruiting the drug dealers/party animals who know how to lock down their social media.

You have completely and utterly missed the point.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A birth cert is not photo ID. It does not serve the same purpose.

It serves the same purpose as far as it is generally accepted by employers who request that candidates bring with them a form of identification. In this case it's reasonable to assume that the birth certificate was an acceptable form of identification for the interviewers. I couldn't find anything in Debenhams recruitment process referring specifically to what documentation candidates are asked to bring with them on the day they are requested to attend -

Stage One: Telephone Interview

If we like what we’ve read in your application, our Resourcing Team will get in touch with you to arrange a telephone interview. This typically happens within 7 days of us receiving your application. The aim of the telephone interview is for us to get to know you better, so it’s a great opportunity for you to tell us more about yourself and what you can bring to the role.

Stage Two: Interview/Recruitment Event

Impress us enough on the phone and you’ll be invited for an interview at your local store. Depending on the role you’re applying for, we may also ask you to take part in some practical exercises as part of a recruitment event. We don’t just see interviews as a chance to understand whether you are right for us, they are as much an opportunity for you to see if Debenhams is the right place for you – so make sure you come prepared with a few questions for us. The main things we’ll be looking to find out from you are why you want to join Debenhams, what makes you suitable for the role and what kind of work experience you already have under your belt.

Stage Three: Second Interview

For some roles, we may ask you to come back in for a second and final interview. It doesn’t happen very often. But if it does, you can expect the second interview to take place within a few days.

Stage Four: Our Decisions

We are committed to notifying candidates of our decision as quickly as we can. This usually happens within 7 days but can sometimes take a little longer. If you’ve been successful we’ll get in contact to make you the offer, answer any questions you may have and agree your start date. You will then be able to accept our offer online. After that, we’ll look forward to welcoming you on your first day.

Feedback

If you‘d like feedback from your interview, we’ll be very happy to provide it to you. All you’ve got to do is ask.

marieholmfan

dvdman1 wrote: »

No...a man in my eyes and many more...i refuse to acknowledge him as a woman.

It's a question of civility.

Ironicname

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It's a shame that you're not posting under your real name, because many employers would be delighted to be able to exclude people with such short-sighted, narrow-minded traits as those on display here.

Because of "progressive" types like you that want anyone who opposes your view to be punished.

So enlightened, so progressive.

Pity you don't go by your real name too.

Ironicname

marieholmfan wrote:

It's a question of civility.

I am respectful and civil to those who deserve it, not demand it.

seamus

Ironicname wrote: »

I am respectful and civil to those who deserve it, not demand it.

Everyone deserves respect and civility by default. It's a privilege you can lose, not one you have to earn.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Everyone deserves respect and civility by default. It's a privilege you can lose, not one you have to earn.

That’s a matter of opinion, not fact. All anyone is actually entitled to, is an expectation of civility and respect. Nobody can be compelled to either respect or be civil to anyone which they do not respect, nor can anyone be compelled to be civil to someone. Those are entitlements which can only be earned, as opposed to any idealistic notions that everyone already has those privileges by default. It stands to reason then of course that a person cannot lose what they never had in the first place. They are entitled to expect respect and civility of course in a democratic society, and they can demand it, but equally in a democratic society it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are going to receive either respect or civility from anyone that they haven’t earned it from.

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not. All anyone is entitled to is an expectation of civility and respect. Nobody can be compelled to either respect or be civil to anyone which they do not respect, nor can anyone be compelled to be civil to someone. Those are entitlements which can only be earned, as opposed to any idealistic notions that everyone already has those privileges by default. It stands to reason then of course that a person cannot lose what they never had in the first place. They can demand it of course, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are going to receive either respect or civility from anyone.

Logically then it stands to reason that you believe you're entitled to treat everyone else like **** until they have earned your respect.

You see what's wrong with that perspective, right?

You already treat other people with respect, by default. When you buy something in the shop, you say "Hi" to the cashier you've never met and you say "thanks" afterwards.
When you get a taxi, you jump in and say "How's it goin' mate".

You treat everyone with a basic level of respect and dignity. They don't "earn" it, they're entitled to it by virtue of existnig.

The "respect is earned" line is just trotted out when people want to justify having a ****ty attitude towards people they don't even know.

In this instance, what "Ironicname" really meant to say is, "Transgender people have lost my respect by virtue of their existence". Not, "Transgender people haven't earned my respect".

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Exaggerate much?

No. Anyone who we interview in my place gets googled. Anyone who comes up in an article who has taken a case against an employer (justified or not) or who has taken a compo claim won't be invited for interview. And i don't think we're unique in this. Who wants litigious employees?

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

No. Anyone who we interview in my place gets googled. Anyone who comes up in an article who has taken a case against an employer (justified or not) or who has taken a compo claim won't be invited for interview. And i don't think we're unique in this. Who wants litigious employees?

At least one major UK retailer was certainly happy to take a 'litigious employee' as CEO (your term, not mine). Who's afraid of litigious employees would be a better question.

bucketybuck wrote: »

You have completely and utterly missed the point.

Actually, it is the reverse of what you say.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

Logically then it stands to reason that you believe you're entitled to treat everyone else like **** until they have earned your respect.

You see what's wrong with that perspective, right?

I don’t agree that is a logical conclusion to my position, no, because I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to treat anyone else like crap either. One doesn’t have to respect or be civil to anyone else, but they aren’t entitled to treat anyone else like crap either.

seamus wrote: »

You already treat other people with respect, by default. When you buy something in the shop, you say "Hi" to the cashier you've never met and you say "thanks" afterwards.
When you get a taxi, you jump in and say "How's it goin' mate".

You treat everyone with a basic level of respect and dignity. They don't "earn" it, they're entitled to it by virtue of existnig.

No, I don’t, and certainly not by default. I practice basic manners. I don’t expect I can compel anyone else to behave in the same way as I do, nor can I compel anyone to agree with me or accept something which they do not accept and do not respect and regard as utter nonsense. I treat some people with a basic level of respect and dignity, other people I find contemptible I have no respect for them and I feel no obligation to be civil to them. I have the freedom to believe that merely existing is not an achievement worthy of respect or civility. A person earns respect by achieving something worthy of respect, and they lose respect when they demand respect and civility from anyone in circumstances where they haven’t done anything that would merit recognition.

I’m saying ‘I’, but everyone has that right.

seamus wrote: »

The "respect is earned" line is just trotted out when people want to justify having a ****ty attitude towards people they don't even know.

I don’t agree that it is. I don’t generally have a ****ty attitude towards anyone, only those people who demand respect and civility I don’t feel they have earned. That’s when I forego the employment of basic manners seeing as they appear to have chosen to forego their own principles of offering me the same respect and civility they expect I should offer them when I think they have a shìtty attitude.

Having said all that and as to how it applies in this particular case, I think the candidate in question displays an attitude of overconfidence in their suitability for the role according to their standards, and it could easily have been the case that the interviewers didn’t share the candidates opinion of their suitability for the role. It happens all the time that interview candidates imagine themselves to be a shoo-in for a role, only to be disappointed with the fact that the employer didn’t share their opinion. It doesn’t immediately indicate any discrimination on the part of the employer, in spite of the fact that the candidate is entitled to believe otherwise.

KiKi III

On every thread about discrimination, there’s a host of people lining up to suggest it didn’t happen - I’d love to live in their utopia where all forms of discrimination are a thing of the past.

Ironicname

seamus wrote:

Everyone deserves respect and civility by default. It's a privilege you can lose, not one you have to earn.

That's not true at all. I don't have to respect anyone. And calling someone by their biological pronoun is not disrespectful.

In fact you could say putting a stranger under an obligation to use their preferred pronoun is disrespectful.

Anyway, somebody who expects me to ignore biological fact in order to "correctly" address them and who makes what I would think to be a frivolous lawsuit on a company would have to earn my respect.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

On every thread about discrimination, there’s a host of people lining up to suggest it didn’t happen - I’d love to live in their utopia where all forms of discrimination are a thing of the past.

People are questioning it. In my utopia, that’s still allowed to happen.

Ironicname

seamus wrote:

In this instance, what "Ironicname" really meant to say is, "Transgender people have lost my respect by virtue of their existence". Not, "Transgender people haven't earned my respect".

Not at all. And that is horrible framing.

Transgender people I haven't met are treated in the exact same way as any other people I haven't met.

I know a handful of transgender women who I get along fantastically with and I am respectful to them as they are to me.

Respect needs to be earned in my opinion.

Respect means nothing if you give it to everyone.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

On every thread about discrimination, there’s a host of people lining up to suggest it didn’t happen - I’d love to live in their utopia where all forms of discrimination are a thing of the past.

You’re more than welcome to drop the idea that because someone makes a claim, they are automatically entitled to be believed. It’s certainly far more liberating than the idea that discrimination is as prevalent as some people need other people to believe. That’s a rather dystopian perspective of society.

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At least one major UK retailer was certainly happy to take a 'litigious employee' as CEO (your term, not mine). Who's afraid of litigious employees would be a better question.

I'm just giving my experience of interviewing and hiring panels over years, you can take it or leave it

Beasty

dvdman1 wrote: »

No...a man in my eyes and many more...i refuse to acknowledge him as a woman.

Do not post in this thread again

AndrewJRenko

KiKi III wrote: »

On every thread about discrimination, there’s a host of people lining up to suggest it didn’t happen - .

Let me take a wild guess - these people are mostly middle-aged, middle-class white males?

Beasty

Winning_Stroke wrote: »

Who believes this sh!te.

I'd say yer man is having a good laugh though, 9k for flunking an interview. A lucrative career.

You are also threadbanned

Beasty

Just to clarify - the above posters were threadbanned for misgendering

If anyone does not wish to use a person's preferred, or a neutral, pronoun, please stay out of this thread

Any questions, PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

Thanks