Protected characteristic – Page 3 – Seán Crossan's Scots Law

Civil partner? I do!

As of today (31 December 2019), heterosexual couples in England and Wales will be able to enter civil partnerships as an alternative to marriage.

This change does not yet extend to Scotland: the Scottish Government has introduced its own Bill to introduce civil partnerships for heterosexual couples.

An info graphic showing the current progress of this Bill in the Scottish Parliament (Stage 1) can be seen below:

When the Labour Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair originally introduced civil partnerships across the UK (as a result of the Civil Partnerships Act 2004) such legal unions were open to gay and lesbian couples only.

It was the first time in the history of Scots and English family law that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to enter a legally recognised relationship.

Fast forward a decade or so and we now have same sex marriage in Scotland, England and Wales – but not yet Northern Ireland (although the clock may be ticking here on this issue). Admittedly, same sex couples can enter civil partnerships in Northern Ireland, but since the Republic of Ireland made same sex marriage legal in 2015, pressure has been mounting for change in the North.

The case which started the ball rolling was Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education [2016] EWHC 128 (Admin).

In Steinfeld and Keidan, an unmarried, heterosexual couple brought a claim for unlawful less favourable treatment against the UK Government on the basis that the law (contained in the Civil Partnership Act 2004) discriminated against them by forcing them to enter marriage as opposed to their preferred option of a civil partnership arrangement. The couple had strong “ideological objections” to marriage (irrespective of whether it took a religious or civil form) and argued, amongst other things, that the failure by the United Kingdom to give them the option of entering a civil partnership was a potential breach of their Article 8 rights (the right to privacy and family life) in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban on civil partnerships for heterosexual couples was also a potential breach of the Equality Act 2010 in the sense that it represented direct discrimination on grounds of a person’s sexual orientation.

Initially, the English High Court rejected the challenge brought by Steinfeld and Keidan, whereupon the case was allowed to proceed to the English Court of Appeal. Although expressing sympathy for Steinfeld and Keidan’s predicament, the Lord Justices of Appeal refused to overturn the ban (see Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWCA Civ 81).

The couple were then given leave to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

On 27 June 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision: R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) [2018] UKSC 32.

Lord Kerr gave the leading judgement (with which his fellow Justices concurred) and allowed Steinfeld and Keidan’s appeal:

“I would allow the appeal and make a declaration that sections 1 and 3 of CPA [Civil Partnership Act 2004] (to the extent that they preclude a different sex couple from entering into a civil partnership) are incompatible with article 14 of ECHR taken in conjunction with article 8 of the Convention.”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the UK Government of former Prime Minister Theresa May initiated steps to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in respect of the law for England and Wales.

A link to an article about the change to the law in England and Wales on the Sky News website can be found below:

Civil partnerships: First mixed-sex couples celebrate union http://news.sky.com/story/civil-partnerships-first-mixed-sex-couples-celebrate-union-11898759

Different standards?

Photo by Elyssa Fahndrich on Unsplash

An interesting case which caught my attention recently seemed to raise many issues which I have been emphasising to my students who are preparing for their upcoming Discrimination Law exam this month.

The case (The Governing Body of Tywyn Primary School v Aplin Case No 1600635/2016 [2019]) seemed to cover (almost) the whole syllabus of the Discrimination Law unit:

A discrimination dismissal of a high flying professional employee (a head teacher)
A large sum of compensation awarded to the employee for the dismissal (nearly £700,000)
Direct discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic (the employee’s sexual orientation) in terms Sections 4, 12 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010
The real problems faced by the employee in attempting to mitigate his losses (which the amount of the compensation award reflects)
Breach of disciplinary procedures by the employer
Breach of human rights i.e. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy and family life)
Alleged reputational damage caused to the employer as a result of the employee’s conduct
The reversal of the burden of proof
The use of hypothetical comparators

The facts

Matthew Aplin is an openly gay man who was the head teacher of Tywyn primary school in Wales. He has been a teacher for 19 years and has an excellent professional reputation. In 2015, allegations about Aplin’s private life came to the attention of his employer (the School’s Board of Governors). It was alleged that Aplin had engaged in consensual sexual relationships with two 17 year old males that he had met through Grindr, the well known dating app. Users of Grindr must be aged 18 or over and, significantly, Aplin did not suspect the true age of the two males.

Aplin believed that the two young men were over 18 and, in any case, users of Grindr have to be aged 18 or over.

Following these allegations of alleged misconduct, Aplin was suspended and the Board of Governors commenced a disciplinary investigation.

At the request of the Governors, an investigating officer (Mr Gordon) was appointed by the local council. Mr Gordon’s terms of reference in respect of Aplin’s behaviour were as follows:

(a) had this brought the reputation of the School into disrepute?
(b) had it impacted on his ability to undertake the role of Head Teacher?; and/or
(c) had it demonstrated so gross an error of judgment as to undermine the School’s confidence in him and, therefore, to call into question his continuation in the role?

Mr Gordon quickly concluded that Aplin should be dismissed from his post despite the fact that this employee did not represent a possible threat to children. Local Police officers were briefly involved in their own investigation, but significantly they later concluded that no crime had been committed by Aplin.

Despite this, Aplin was dismissed for gross misconduct by the School Governors.

He promptly appealed against his dismissal, but the Governors did not deal with this matter efficiently or properly. Angered at the perceived lack of fair treatment of his appeal, Aplin decided to resign from his employment and claim unfair (constructive) dismissal; discrimination by reason of his sexual orientation; and interference with his right to respect for private and family life.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (which became involved to deal with technical aspects of the case) later noted:

“There were numerous procedural errors which amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the investigation and the disciplinary hearing.”

Ordinarily, the burden of proof lies upon the claimant (Aplin) to show that discrimination has taken place. In this case, there were enough factors present which meant that the burden of proof should shift to the respondent (the School Governors) who would now have to show that they had not discriminated against Aplin.

On the question of whether the burden of proof should be reversed, Judge Shanks in the Employment Appeal Tribunal had this to say:

“… in my view the thrust of it [the Tribunal’s reasoning] is clear and it provides a sufficient basis for the ET’s decision that the burden of proof had shifted on the question of whether Mr Aplin was treated unfavourably because of his sexual orientation.”

In arriving at this position, Judge Shanks was firmly of the view that:

“.. the Tribunal had rightly recognised that the background to the whole case was intimately connected with Mr Aplin’s sexuality; they then judge that the procedural failures by the School were so egregious that the inference could be drawn that there was more to it than simply the fact that he had had lawful sex with two 17 year olds; and they therefore considered that it would be possible, in the absence of any other explanation, properly to infer that he had been discriminated against because of his sexual orientation. That seems to me a perfectly acceptable line of reasoning.”

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

Aplin had been unfairly dismissed; and subjected to direct discrimination by reason of his sexual orientation.

As a point of interest, the case involved the use of hypothetical comparators to arrive at its decision, namely, would a heterosexual teacher (either male or female) who had sexual relations with two 17 year olds have been treated in the same way as Aplin? The Employment Tribunal concluded that such individuals would not have been treated any differently.

Interestingly, in its final judgement, the Tribunal found that, although a person’s sexual relationships are undoubtedly covered by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not an absolute right. Such a right may be restricted or interfered with “where it is necessary for the protection of morals” in “a democratic society”:

“Thererefore, we consider that it is possible to conclude that in the circumstances of this case the claimant could have been disciplined
for his admitted conduct within the qualification in Article 8(2). …

… However, a fair process would require the respondent to consider whether the claimant was aware that the individuals were 17 years of age. Further it would have to consider what the real risk of the issues becoming public were and therefore what the real potential for
reputational damage was.”

The two 17 year olds were children in the eyes of the law and Aplin, as a Head Teacher, could be viewed as someone who was in a position of power and that position which could be abused by him.

As Aplin had admitted to his conduct (the relationships with the two males), the Employment Tribunal concluded that there was at least. 20% chance of him being dismissed successfully – had the proper disciplinary procedures been carried by the employer (which of course they were not). In this respect, Aplin suffered a 20% deduction in the overall compensation awarded to him as per the guidelines originally laid down in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8.

Links to the decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal can be found below:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dcd4bf140f0b608cb5cb738/Mr_Aplin_v_The_Governing_Body_of_Tywyn_Primary_School_-_1600635.2016_-_Judgment.pdf

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2019/0298_17_2203.html&query=(Tywyn)

A link to the story on The Independent’s website can be found below:

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.171119/data/9205646/index.html

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 8 December 2019

Not British enough?

Photo by Guillaume de Germain on Unsplash

It never feels to amaze me that by casually flicking through the weekend newspapers and news outlets you can discover stories about discrimination without really making much of an effort. I often say this to my students when I ask them to highlight a media story about an aspect of discrimination law at the beginning of each class. There’s really no excuse for saying that they couldn’t find anything to talk about.

And so it proved today – although I must give credit to my students who had alerted me to this story some weeks ago during one of their regular presentations.

The story concerns Mr and Mrs Mander who have just won their claim for unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of their race. Race (including national origin and a person’s colour), of course, is one of the protected characteristics which is set out in terms of Sections 4 and 9 of the Equality Act 2010.

Section 13 of the Act contains the definition of direct discrimination.

The Manders are of Sikh and Indian heritage who were both born in the UK and are British citizens. Their parents all came to the UK when they were small children. The couple participate in ceremonies and events throughout the Sikh Holy Year, but otherwise they are not particularly religious.

In this respect, they are very similar to people from a White British or Irish background who attend Church, for example, at Christmas and Easter. The couple are both university educated professionals with senior positions in the IT industry and they are comfortably well off. Culturally, the Manders see themselves as British, but obviously they are rightly aware and proud of their heritage.

After numerous attempts to start a family, the Manders decided to investigate the possibility of adopting a child. For this purpose, the couple dealt with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Adopt Berkshire. The experience would end in disappointment for the couple.

The Manders took a claim to Oxford County Court alleging direct race discrimination (and alternatively indirect discrimination in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 2010) against the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and Adopt Berkshire (the defendants).

It should also be appreciated that Section 29 of the Equality Act makes it clear that individuals can experience unlawful discrimination in respect of the provision of a service – in this case that of adoption services.

The couple also alleged that they had suffered discrimination in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the following:

Article 8 (the right to family and private life)
Article 12 (the right to marry and found a family)
Article 14 (the prohibition on discrimination)

In the event, at the trial, the Manders decided not to pursue claims in terms of Article 8 and Section 19.

Her Honour Judge Clarke summarised the essence of the Manders’ claim:

‘It is important to understand that Mr and Mrs Mander’s claim is not that they applied to be approved as adopters but were wrongly or unfairly rejected or discriminated against either during the process of consideration of their application for adoption, or when considering whether to match them to a child. Mr and Mrs Mander’s case is that the Defendants discriminated against them on the basis of their race before they made formal application to adopt, inter alia by refusing to progress them to the ROI/application stage.’

The Council and Adopt Berkshire did not at any time advance the argument that the Manders were in any way unsuitable as prospective, adoptive parents.

The justification given for the refusal to permit the Manders to proceed to the Registration of Interest/application stage was that it was unlikely that children from the same cultural background as the couple would become available for adoption in the short or longer term.

The couple were informed by letter from the Service Manager of Adopt Berkshire that:

‘In the last 17 months since Adopt Berkshire we have not had a single child of Indian or Pakistani heritage referred to us for placement …’

The letter went on to state:

‘… it is hard at the current time to advise you how best to proceed regarding adopting within the U.K.; however another option that you may wish to explore is the option of adopting from India – while this is likely to be a lengthy process and may be financially stretching, it may ultimately be more likely to enable you to achieve the placement of a young child whose cultural heritage is similar to your own.’

Eventually, the couple adopted a child from the United States of America, but at a considerable financial cost.

In evidence, the Manders were in no doubt that they had been treated differently by Adopt Berkshire:

‘There was no doubt in my mind that she [Mrs Popat, an employee of Adopt Berkshire] in fact made a judgment based on the colour of our skin. I was never treated like this before. I grew up in this country. My grandfather fought in the British Army – I was hurt and disappointed.’ (Mrs Manders)

‘Adopt Berkshire made me feel that the country where I grew up still saw me as different. It did not matter that I grew up here, as long as I was not white, I could not be British. I found this thought very disturbing – I had trouble sleeping at night because of how angry and helpless I felt.’ (Mr Manders)

Held: by the County Court that the Manders had suffered direct discrimination on the grounds of their race when their application was not progressed to the ROI/application stage of the adoption process.

Her Honour Judge Clarke did not, however, uphold the couple’s claim that their rights under Article 12 of the European Convention had been breached. As her Honour pointed out the right to adopt a child is not covered by the Convention, but rather is left to national law.

Judge Clarke also acknowledged that the discrimination suffered by the Manders was of a very serious nature:

‘I consider this to be a very serious case, which sits at the top of the middle, or bottom of the upper, range of the Vento bands …’

In this respect, the Manders were awarded both ordinary (£29,000) and special damages (£60,000).

The application of the Vento Bands was discussed in a previous Blog, Hurt feelings:

https://seancrossansscotslaw.com/2019/02/14/hurt-feelings/

A link to the decision of the County Court in Reena and Sandeep Mander v (1) Royal Borough of Windsor and Berkshire and (2) Adopt Berkshire [2019] Case No: C01RG184 can be found below:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Mander-Mander-v-RBWM-Adopt-Berkshire-FINAL-Judgment-C01RG184.pdf

A link to the story in The Guardian can be found below:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/06/sandeep-reena-mander-win-race-discrimination-case-adoption-berkshire

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 7 December 2019

Biased blood?

Photo by LuAnn Hunt on Unsplash

Yesterday, I tuned into Jeremy Vine’s daily show on BBC Radio 2 while out in the car and happened to catch an interesting discussion about potential discrimination and blood donation.

Ethan Spibey was a guest on the show and he was discussing his campaign to make it easier for gay and bisexual men to make regular blood donations. Mr Spibey is involved in a campaigning organisation called Freedom to Donate.

Readers of this Blog will be aware that I often discuss examples of actual or potential discrimination in terms of the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Spibey’s contribution to the Jeremy Vine show got me thinking about an issue – to which I readily confess hadn’t featured much on my radar previously: was the requirement or condition imposed by the NHS in this country making gay or bisexual men abstain from sex for 3 months before they are permitted to give blood an example of discriminatory treatment?

A link to Freedom to Donate’s Twitter account can be found below:

https://twitter.com/FreedomToDonate

The discussion about restrictions on who can give blood got me thinking: would this be an example of direct and/or indirect discrimination in terms of Sections 13 and 19 respectively of the Equality Act 2010?

Direct discrimination occurs when someone experiences unlawful, less favourable treatment because they possess a protected characteristic (in this situation: sexual orientation).

As we shall see, gay and bisexual men are certainly placed at a distinct disadvantage in regarding the current restrictions on blood donation when comparing their situation to that of heterosexuals.

The National Health Service (NHS) is also applying a practice criterion or policy (PCP) which has a disproportionately adverse effect on men who are gay or bisexual.

Section 19 of the Equality Act defines indirect discrimination in the following terms:

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s.’

Section 19(2) makes it very clear what it is meant by a discriminatory provision, criterion or practice in relation to a relevant protected characteristic:

(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,

(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,

(c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and

(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In 2017, to much fanfare, NHS England announced that the previous 12 month abstention period for gay and bisexual men had been reduced to the current period of 3 months.

A link to a press release from NHS England can be found below:

https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/news-and-statements/blood-donation-rules-have-changed/

NHS Scotland also operates a similar approach as can be seen from the link below (click on the section entitled Sexual relations):

https://www.scotblood.co.uk/giving-blood/can-i-give-blood/

Apparently, all blood donors are asked about their sexual orientation as part of the screening process. However … if you are a gay or bisexual man, then you are asked further questions about your sex life.

Needless to say this requirement does not apply to individuals whose stated sexual orientation is heterosexual.

Now, Ethan Spibey conceded that the paramount duty of the NHS was to ensure the safety of blood donations, but he was firmly of the view that heterosexuals could pose just as much of a threat to the health and safety of the beneficiary.

Are gay and bisexual men suffering as a result of a hangover from the 1980s when the fear of AIDS and HIV was omnipresent as the rather grim public information film from the time demonstrates?:

The current approach to blood donations, as campaigners like Mr Spibey would argue, results in a blanket policy which has a disproportionately adverse effect on gay and bisexual men. A person’s sexual orientation is, of course, a protected characteristic in terms of Sections 4 and 12 of the Equality Act 2010.

Health and safety can be used as an objective justification to defeat claims of discrimination, but it must be a credible defence. Do gay and bisexual men represent a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation’s blood supply? Clearly, the scientific evidence would have to be objective and credible to sustain this argument.

After listening to Mr Spibey, I was left with the impression that the scientific evidence for treating this group of people differently might not be so clear cut.

A link to a discussion on the BBC website about the issue can be found below:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48598461

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 6 December 2019

Mind your language!

Photo by Ilya Ilford on Unsplash

“Great big girl’s blouse!” or “a girly swot”. Harmless insults; a bit of banter; or perhaps an example of sexist language? Deborah Haynes, a journalist with Sky News, certainly took the view that these remarks were sexist in nature – even though men were the targets (see the link below).

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-girly-swot-big-girls-blouse-are-sexist-jibes-and-shouldnt-be-used-by-the-pm-11804690

The first of these remarks was uttered allegedly by Prime Minister Boris Johnson MP in the House of Commons last week and directed towards the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn MP. The second remark was in a memo written by the Prime Minister in which he was critical of David Cameron (one of his predecessors).

Mr Johnson is well known for his colourful language in both print and in his speeches, but he was called out last week in the House of Commons by the Labour MP, Tammanjeet Singh Dhesi who accused him in very blunt terms of making racist remarks about Muslim women who chose to wear the Islamic form of dress known as the burka as an outward sign of their religious beliefs and cultural background.

Mr Tammanjeet drew on his own experiences as a Sikh and the kinds of derogatory remarks that he had to endure. His speech was received very warmly on the Opposition benches of the House of Commons.

On the other hand, Mr Johnson attempted a defence of his language by saying that he had merely spoken up in favour of the good old fashioned liberal value of freedom of speech. It was not an entirely convincing performance from the Prime Minister and far from his finest hour at the despatch box.

The Equality Act 2010 recognises various forms of prohibited conduct such as direct discrimination (Section 13) and harassment (Section 26). Sexist, sectarian and homophobic remarks may well be taken as examples of direct discrimination. A sustained campaign of bullying to which an individual (with a particular protected characteristic) is subjected may amount to harassment.

It will be sensible for employers particularly to spell out to employees what is acceptable (and what is not) in terms of the kinds of language or behaviour in the work-place. If employers do nothing to check discriminatory remarks such as racist or sexist insults, there is a real danger that they could be held vicariously liable.

Had Mr Johnson been a mere mortal, some of his remarks may have come back to haunt him. Employers are entitled to take disciplinary action against those employees who have committed acts of discrimination. After all, they are merely protecting their position by not leaving themselves open to the threat of legal action by the victims.

From the employee’s perspective, engaging in offensive language could give the employer the right to treat this type of behaviour as gross misconduct. It should be recalled that, in terms of Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1998, misconduct committed by an employee can be punished by dismissal and such a termination of the employment contract may be entirely reasonable in the circumstances.

In short, no one should have to work in a place where there is a hostile, degrading or intimidating environment. Racist or sexist remarks can be highly suggestive of such a working environment if permitted to go unchecked and unchallenged. Maybe in future the Prime Minister would do well to mind his language.

Links to articles about the Prime Minister’s colourful turn of phrase can be found below:

https://news.sky.com/video/share-11802095

http://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-branded-david-cameron-girly-swot-leaked-document-reveals-11803807

Don’t do it!

Don’t do what? Get pregnant, it would seem if you’re a female athlete who receives sponsorship from one of the planet’s most visible sporting brands.

Just this week, allegations have been made by a number of female athletes that Nike withdrew sponsorship after they discovered that they were pregnant.

Now, if the allegations are true, this would certainly represent an example of unlawful, less favourable treatment. Pregnancy and maternity discrimination are prohibited in terms of Sections 17 (non-work cases) and 18 (work cases) of the Equality Act 2010. They are very specific forms of sex discrimination (a person’s sex or gender is a protected characteristic in terms of Section 11 of the Act).

In 2019, you might have been forgiven for thinking that pregnancy discrimination was a thing of the past…

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975

The (now repealed) Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which was held up as a significant advance for woman’s equality, was fundamentally flawed when it addressed the issue of pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

When the Act of 1975 was first introduced, cases involving alleged discrimination connected to a woman’s pregnancy encountered an unexpected problem, which the Parliamentary draftsmen had not taken into account: how could it be valid to attempt a comparison between that of a pregnant woman’s situation with that of a man? A strict application of the legislation meant that this was not a valid comparison and, therefore, many of the earliest sex discrimination claims failed because some judges applied the literal approach to the interpretation of the Act – even if this made the law something of an ass and, more seriously, led to blatant injustice.

This Act made it very clear that central to the success of any claim was the complainant’s ability to compare his or her allegedly less favourable treatment to an actual or hypothetical male/female comparator. If he or she could not do this, the claim would fail. A woman claiming that she had suffered discrimination on the grounds of her sex must have been able to carry out a like with like comparison.

The woman’s circumstances and those of her male comparator must have been broadly the same (they should not have been materially different) otherwise a meaningful comparison could not be made.

The European Union

This situation really continued into the 1990s and, it was only when the Court of Justice of the European Union resolved the matter in Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jonge Volwassen Plus (1991), that things started to improve. Dekker clearly established that there was no requirement for pregnant women to identify a male comparator when they were alleging that they had experienced unlawful, less favourable treatment.

The Equality Act 2010 now, in theory, affords pregnant women and mothers much stronger legal protection than the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 ever did, but yet examples of pregnancy and maternity discrimination still arise.

It was as recently as 2016 that the Equalities and Women Committee of the House of Commons exposed the shocking extent of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the UK. Maria Miller MP, chair of the Committee stated:

“Our 2016 report laid bare the significant discrimination and poor treatment faced by 54,000 pregnant women and mothers at work each year.”

A link to the Committee’s Report can be found below:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/pregnancy-maternity-discrimination-2-statement-17-19/

Just do it?

Being deadly serious, the above slogan (of Nike) will hardly sit well with those female athletes in receipt of sponsorship from the company. That said, should we really be surprised that stories of this nature emerge when read against the Report of the Women and Equalities Committee?

A link to the article about alleged pregnancy discrimination as reported by Sky News can be found below:

Pregnant athletes ‘punished’ by Nike, says champion British runner Jo Pavey
http://news.sky.com/story/pregnant-athletes-punished-by-nike-says-champion-british-runner-jo-pavey-11721817

In 2018, Nike was praised for endorsing Colin Kaepernick, the former African American Football star who had actively campaigned to raise awareness of racial inequality. Now with these sex discrimination allegations, is it a case of one step forward, ten steps back for Nike?

Postscript

On 26 May 2019, The Independent reported that Nike had promised not to impose financial penalties on those female athletes who became pregnant and who were in receipt of sponsorship from the corporation. This was undoubtedly due to the considerable, adverse publicity which the story had generated around the world.

A link to the article in The Independent can be found below:

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.260519/data/8930341/index.html

On 17 August 2019, the BBC reported that Nike had removed the offensive clause from its contracts with female athletes.

A link to the story can be found below:

Allyson Felix: Nike changes policy for pregnant athletes

Six-time Olympic gold medallist Allyson Felix says female athletes will “no longer be financially penalised for having a child” after Nike changed its sponsorship contracts.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 17 & 26 May and 17 August 2019

Braveheart?

Photo by Petia Koleva on Unsplash

In a previous post published on 22 January 2019 (Philosophical beliefs (or you’d better believe it!), I drew attention to the ongoing of Employment Tribunal case of Christopher McEleny against the Ministry of Defence.

Mr McEleny is an SNP councillor for Inverclyde and some time ago he ran for the Party’s Deputy Leadership post. In his day job, Mr McEleny was employed as an electrician by the UK Ministry of Defence at one of its sites in Beith, Ayrshire.

When his employer found out that Mr McEleny was running for the Deputy Leadership post, he claims that was pulled in to a meeting and grilled about his views on Trident amongst other things. He also had his security clearance revoked and was suspended. Although he was reinstated, Mr McEleny later decided to leave his job with the MOD.

Mr McEleny brought a claim under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 alleging that he had suffered direct discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs i.e. his belief in Scottish independence as a concept which forms and influences many of his decisions in life.

At a Preliminary Hearing in July 2018, the Employment Tribunal Judge ruled that belief in Scottish independence could constitute a philosophical belief which was capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010. It should be noted that Mr McEleny was able to demonstrate that many of the decisions that he makes and the ways in which he chooses to live his life are firmly based on his belief in Scottish independence. It is important to appreciate that him merely being a member of the SNP was not enough: you have demonstrate that you live by your beliefs.

The Ministry of Defence disagreed with this finding and appealed. Employment Tribunal Frances Eccles has now considered the appeal and has decided that a belief in Scottish independence can constitute a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

Mr McEleny’s claim must still proceed to a full Employment Tribunal Hearing in which he will have to demonstrate that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination by reason of his philosophical beliefs.

A link to an article about the latest turn in Mr McEleny’s case can be found below:

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/judge-upholds-ruling-belief-independence-protected-under-equality-law-religion