Is this sex discrimination?

poet123

peachyprice wrote: »

Unfair to who exactly?

The whole situation has gone too far for her to ignore now, it's not just about the dress, it's also about her manager trying to bribe her to keep quiet. Standing down now would leave her in a very vulnerable situation.

Sorry I got interrupted, and used the wrong word,I meant to say "unwise":o

MrsTinks

I think for every time you post to give more of a story that screams "stand up to them!" to me the stronger I feel you should stand up for yourself. IF they try and get rid of you then it's adding unfair dismissal or even constructive dismissal to the list.
However... practial point: if you and your husband don't already have income protection and mortgage repayment protection etc etc - something at the moment I think eveyone should think about having...

Nicki

MrsTine wrote: »

IF they try and get rid of you then it's adding unfair dismissal or even constructive dismissal to the list.

Yes, quite possibly. However the compensation payable for unfair dismissal is pretty derisory I'm afraid, and not worth much in a climate where jobs are getting more thin on the ground. It's not unheard of for companies to decide that the cost of a claim (usually just a few weeks salary) is worth it to get rid of an employee whose face just doesn't fit.

Added to which sportsbeth is a female in a male dominated industry. What are her chances of getting a similar position easily if she has been dismissed from her current one, and is suing her previous employer for sexual discrimination to boot.

I think we all have to recognise that sometimes life isn't fair, and to make risk benefit analyses as well as considering simply the strict legal rights and wrongs of the situation.

poet123

I really couldnt agree more with what Nicki says. Whilst we all know it is wrong,but in the scheme of things there are bigger battles. Similarly, there are ways of approaching issues which do not leave you as exposed as Sportbeth now is,and by extension her husband.

I would have done exactly as Nicki advises and played the game. It is easy to advise/fan the flames etc when one is removed from the situation. It is surely better to try to offer measured, useful strategies to try to overcome the obstacle, rather than engaging in all out war against a management structure. It will be cold comfort to the OP that she won her battle if come January both she and her husband are out of work due to"cost cutting measures" or some other such trumped up reason.

JCS1

Been thinking of the taxable benefit angle, and think I understand it:

• Hire of suits would be allowable as a business expense.
• Buying an evening gown would be a taxable benefit as the person would still have the ball gown afterwards. But for a £30 quid dress, assuming you pay tax at 20% you would get a tax bill of £6 (Employer would have to pay Class 2B NIC on the £30

Doesn't explain why employer didn't offer the women the chance of dress hire though.

AnnieM_3

Nicki wrote: »

In her circumstances, I would have raised it with the line manager, and with HR. I would have pointed out the discrimination. I would not necessarily have regarded the envelope situation as a "bribe" particularly without even opening it. I would have at least opened the envelope in front of the manager to see whether it was his way of backing down on the issue without losing face. For all sportsbeth knows the envelope contained a voucher for a local dress hire shop rather than cold hard cash.

She has done this. Perhaps her reaction to the envelope was rather 'knee-jerk'. We weren't there to see what happened, or how the envelope was presented. Unless the manager passed envelopes to the other women, it would be construed as a bribe, as it is still conferring unequal treatment.

Nicki wrote: »

I would not have emailed HR in the way she did accusing him (even indirectly) of offering a bribe. I would not be gunning so openly for his dismissal if I knew he had the confidence of the MD and I did not. I may or may not have refused the contents of the envelope, but I would certainly have gone to the do, wearing a suitable outfit, which I quite possibly would have hired rather than bought myself if I would have no further use for it.

Ok. How do you know she is gunning for his dismissal though, and surely she needs to protect herself from becoming implicated in any issue of corruption (however minor)?

Nicki wrote: »

I do think I'm afraid that sportsbeth was incited by some posts early in the thread which encouraged her to believe the manager could be sacked for his wrong decision, and that she went in gungho at the meeting last night as a result. And I think that some posters on here should bear some responsibility for this. It's one thing to agree that something is unfair and to give measured advice as to how to deal with it, but quite another to enflame the situation to the extent it now is. A dispute over payment or non-payment of dress hire is not damaging to sportsbeth's career, but a hysterical overreaction and serious allegation against a senior colleague is I'm afraid.

You seem convinced she wants to get the manager sacked! He certainly has left himself in a position where he would be eligible for some degree of disciplinary action if he is in fact unlawfully discriminating against women, and then standing by the discrimination when it was pointed out to him, using comments that make the discrimination obvious, rather than implicit.

Also, if he has tried to bribe the OP into dropping the matter, then that also has serious implications. I imagine she felt her integrity was being called into question, and felt that notifying HR immediately would allow her to distance herself from any wrongdoing. Not sure how that is an hysterical overeaction?

I'm sure the OP is competent to know whether she wants to pursue the matter or not. Clearly, the envelope issue has caused her to feel that the matter is more serious to her than is would otherwise have been. I think she possibly would have let it drop otherwise.

Ephemera

Nicki wrote: »

Fair enough, but I personally wouldn't put the whole of my family's income on the line for the sake of £30 or whatever the going rate for a tux for a night is, particularly if I already knew the managing director already had it in for me, and would be unlikely to support me against my line manager when it came to the crunch.

Good job that the Suffragettes didn't have the same attitude.

Nicki

Ephemera wrote: »

Good job that the Suffragettes didn't have the same attitude.

Hmmm which bit of "pick your battles" wasn't clear? :rolleyes:

Lack of vote, inability to own property after marriage, subject to physical chastisement by husband and marital rape

vs

having to pay for your dress when men don't pay for their suit.

Both wrong and unfair. I'm not for a moment saying otherwise, but only one in my view is worth going to the stake over. Obviously everyone has to make their own choices about what their tipping point is, but I felt it was worth offering the other perspective, rather than have sportsbeth sitting at home by Christmas celebrating her pyrrhic victory and polishing up her CV. At which point, I still wonder whether she'd think it was all worth it for the benefit of those left behind

Errata

I do think I'm afraid that sportsbeth was incited by some posts early in the thread

I would think that Sportbeth has a mind of her own, can exercise judgment, take a view etc etc when she reads what other's have posted.

AnnieM_3

I hope this isn't going to end up being an argument between those who would press the matter, and those who wouldn't. Only the OP can know whether she feels strongly enough to, or if she dares to.