Non-Binary People Protected By U.K. Equality Act, Says Landmark Ruling Against Jaguar Land Rover - Ugh

submitted by Lady_Montgomery from forbes.com

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]our_team_is_winning 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What about cosplayers? If I want to wear my (fill in name of edgy anime character for me as I do not read manga) costume to work, am I protected? What about my dog collar and puppy play stuff, is that protected? What if I'm a nudist? Do I have to wear safety equipment like an apron, workboots, etc. if I'm a nudist? When will political beliefs be protected? In the USA there have been restaurants and stores putting up signs saying "we do not serve [fill in candidate's name] supporters" -- will that stay legal? (That is USA but it could apply other places too.)

I am vegetarian, so if a coworker eats meat next to me in the breakroom, is that a microaggression?

Now what about age play and diaper fetish? Will a changing room with a table large enough for an adult be provided, and would the person be allowed to invite their caregiver to the workplace to change their nappie during breaks?

How far should we take the insanity while at the same time controlling people's speech?

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"we do not serve [fill in candidate's name] supporters"

Is that tongue in cheek or serious? I'm not American, or a lawyer, but I'm sure the constitution would have something to say about that...

[–]our_team_is_winning 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Political views are not protected under discrimination laws in the USA, which scares me because the Thought Police scare me. Businesses can refuse to serve you and to hire you.

<Federal Laws Don’t Prohibit Political Discrimination Not all forms of discrimination are illegal, however. It is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employers to make job decisions based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Other federal laws prohibit discrimination based on age, disability, and genetic information. However, political views aren’t covered by these laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider political views and affiliations in making job decisions.>

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My limited understanding of UK employment comes from following the Maya Forstater case.

From that, I got the impression that decisions or rulings in cases before employment tribunals in the UK do not constitute legal precedent. In other words, someone issuing a decision in an employment tribunal cannot interpret the laws of the UK made by Parliament in a way that expands and remakes them across the board.

Can anyone fill me in?

[–]anonymale 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

IANAL. Employment tribunals do not set legal precedents but employment appeal tribunals - the next tier up - may, and so may higher courts. Here's an example. British cyclist Jess Varnish lost an employment tribunal appeal which, had she won it, may have established in law that 'amateur' athletes training under 'athletic performance agreements' with their sport's governing body are employees with rights such as maternity leave entitlement. She was dropped from her team by a fragile sexist arsehole coach who hid behind 'performance reasons', when actually he didn't like her public criticism.

All the reports I've read on Taylor's case say that while not a binding precedent it is going to be influential in future tribunals.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure if 'Ms. Taylor' still works for JLR or whether she's been dismissed, but if she still works there, you can bet that the problems are going to be twice as bad for her now. She will forever be 'the person who sued the company', and people are going to walk on eggshells around her.

If there was genuine discrimination, then that's unfortunate for her and my heart goes out to her. However I side with JLR. The law doesn't protect 'non-binary', because that term is meaningless. If Ms. Taylor had transitioned then, yes, she would be protected, but this whole thing reeks of "The straights don't want to be my friend!" and she wanted to sue them because of that.

[–]anonymale 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope, Taylor left and then sued for 'constructive dismissal': being forced to resign to escape a hostile work environment. He now works for another company, Arup. Linkedin page. Maybe a female engineer lost out to him for that job. Whether or not that's the case he is now effectively unsackable, and any company he applies to work for in future will need cast-iron reasons to turn him down.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why can't trans people and GNC people be protected under the same umbrella? I don't get why they need a special category. What's the difference between a female non-binary person and a regular GNC woman? I don't know what this company is accused of doing, but if they mistreated the employee because of gender nonconformity, that's not okay. It's this tying of nonconformity to transgender identification that I find problematic.

[–]not_mean_enough 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well... considering that religion is a protected characteristic, it makes sense that being NB is too. Both of these "characteristics" are basically believing in stuff.

Also, anyone that stands out in any way is likely to be discriminated against or harassed, so this enby's claims don't sound so unbelievable to me.

To be honest, I don't think this stuff is a big deal. Having a protected characteristic doesn't give you too much of a special treatment, it mainly makes it easier to prove discrimination or harassment. E.g, when a man make sexist jokes about you and it bothers you, this is automatically harassment* and nobody in the HR department will care about the 'it's just banter, mate' bs.

*Sex is a protected characteristic, and giving someone crap about a protected characteristic is harassment.