Job advert seeking male applicants only - can I report it? And who to?

AP007

Poppie68 wrote: »

Everyone is assuming the employer that placed the ad is discriminating against woman. Maybe they are applying the law that that allows for advertising for men/women only due to the requirements of the particular job, which means it is lawful to employ only a man or woman.
Why does'nt the housemate just go in and ask about the job, it would'nt stop me enquiring if i needed a job. If i went in and was given the boot because i was a female and the job was'nt covered by the above, i would swiftly point out they are breaking the law and then report them.

I don't know that a delivery driver can have those requirements

Poppie68

AP007 wrote: »

I don't know that a delivery driver can have those requirements

Could be some kind of covert operation ....Operation cod, who knows?

Yorkie1

The types of jobs which permit gender discrimination are very tightly defined. A chippy driver does not come into them at all. This is, as stated, an unlawful advert.

The shop really is daft. All it would take is for a woman to apply, get rejected, and then apply to the tribunal (yes, I know there's a fee now) for sex discrimination and they'd win hands down.

I recall reading about serial claimants who sought out adverts which were discriminatory in one way or another (e.g. age), deliberately applied for them when they didn't meet the stated requirements, and then repeatedly won at tribunals.

AP007

Poppie68 wrote: »

Could be some kind of covert operation ....Operation cod, who knows?

Oh hardy har har, not!

Poppie68

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The types of jobs which permit gender discrimination are very tightly defined. A chippy driver does not come into them at all. This is, as stated, an unlawful advert.

The shop really is daft. All it would take is for a woman to apply, get rejected, and then apply to the tribunal (yes, I know there's a fee now) for sex discrimination and they'd win hands down.

I recall reading about serial claimants who sought out adverts which were discriminatory in one way or another (e.g. age), deliberately applied for them when they didn't meet the stated requirements, and then repeatedly won at tribunals.

I totally understand everything everyone is saying with regards to it being unlawful, and i get your point about the shop being daft by most probably falling foul of the law, but i just think if the housemate is interested in the job, go in apply and point out to the owner/manager that the advert is unlawful and not as some have suggested run straight along to the job avert police..the housemate may actually end up with a job they need and a grateful and educated employer..lifes too short .


My dad was telling me a story a while back about when he was still a serving police officer, they advertised for a welsh speaking telephone/admin clerk they nearly had a lawsuit against them from an english woman who said they were discriminating against her by not giving her the job 'as she could go evening classes and learn welsh' the job was too start in 1 week in the middle of very welsh wales, from what i understand even her lawyer was gobsmacked ....and has anyone even tried learning welsh, not exactly the same as learning holiday spainish.

Savvy_Sue

Poppie68 wrote: »

Everyone is assuming the employer that placed the ad is discriminating against woman. Maybe they are applying the law that that allows for advertising for men/women only due to the requirements of the particular job, which means it is lawful to employ only a man or woman.

Normally, if you ARE entitled to apply that law, you say as much in the advert. I think the phrase to use is "It is a genuine occupational requirement under the Equality Act 2010 that the post holder must be male / female / any other genuine occupational requirement". You can add "because of the nature of the work, it is a ..."

I can't see it for a delivery driver.

fruitedeli

Yorkie1 wrote: »

The types of jobs which permit gender discrimination are very tightly defined. A chippy driver does not come into them at all. This is, as stated, an unlawful advert.

The shop really is daft. All it would take is for a woman to apply, get rejected, and then apply to the tribunal (yes, I know there's a fee now) for sex discrimination and they'd win hands down.

I recall reading about serial claimants who sought out adverts which were discriminatory in one way or another (e.g. age), deliberately applied for them when they didn't meet the stated requirements, and then repeatedly won at tribunals.

And when you win you won't win that much compensation, but then there's a record of the employment tribunal case, and you've blacklisted yourself from a large number of employers in the future. The smarter employers for the better paying jobs are more likely to research if you've had any trouble with the law or sued anyone, and if they see you've sued for sex discrimination before, you're the litigious type of person they'd be very cautious/unwilling to hire in case you'd sue them in the future.

Employment tribunal cases are not anonymous. Anyone who is IT literate can easily check if you sued someone before, long as they have your details.

Those serial claimants are not genuinely trying to find a job. They're just looking for a series of payouts, hoping each time they win it's more food on the table. Nobody in the right mind would hire those people, for fear of being sued for saying or doing the wrong thing.

Kavanne

A little photo I took for everyone's amusement

Savvy_Sue

Of course, not so long ago it would have been cheaper to insure a woman driver ...

Southend1

fruitedeli wrote: »

And when you win you won't win that much compensation, but then there's a record of the employment tribunal case, and you've blacklisted yourself from a large number of employers in the future. The smarter employers for the better paying jobs are more likely to research if you've had any trouble with the law or sued anyone, and if they see you've sued for sex discrimination before, you're the litigious type of person they'd be very cautious/unwilling to hire in case you'd sue them in the future.

Employment tribunal cases are not anonymous. Anyone who is IT literate can easily check if you sued someone before, long as they have your details.

Those serial claimants are not genuinely trying to find a job. They're just looking for a series of payouts, hoping each time they win it's more food on the table. Nobody in the right mind would hire those people, for fear of being sued for saying or doing the wrong thing.

I think this is a little far fetched!