Homophobic gossip ruining my life at work

Southend1

OP, here is an USDAW fact sheet which may be useful for you: http://www.usdaw.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=3a3438bd-f8ff-4f2c-b7e4-652d50c89d75

Samsung_Note2

Southend1 wrote: »

"Harassment is defined as ‘unwanted conduct’ and must be related to a relevant protected characteristic or be ‘of a sexual nature‘. It must also have the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.


This can include bullying, nicknames, threats, jokes, ‘banter’, gossip, intrusive or inappropriate questions, ‘outing’ someone, ..."




"‘Outing’ someone – where their sexual orientation is revealed by another person against their wishes or without their permission – may be seen as unlawful harassment. It could also breach the Data Protection Act, if details of their sexual orientation are kept in confidence on file. Also, it might damage staff trust in their workplace. "



http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/r/b/Sexual_Orientation_Discrimination_Nov.pdf

So would my college stating im heterosexual to other colleges be classed as Harassment...?

Southend1

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

So would my college stating im heterosexual to other colleges be classed as Harassment...?

The law protects and applies equally to people who are discriminated
against because they are:
 a lesbian, gay man, heterosexual or bisexual. It does not specifically use these terms, but these are the most commonly used and accepted descriptions in everyday life for each of the protected sexual orientations
 an employee associated with someone who is lesbian, gay, heterosexual or bisexual. For example, a friend or family member
 an employee who is perceived – correctly or incorrectly – to be lesbian, gay, heterosexual or bisexual
 subjected to comments and behaviour regarding sexual orientation which they find offensive.

Southend1

Comms69 wrote: »

Still doesn't change that harassment requires two or more incidents.


The quote missed a key phrase "a course of conduct"

Section 26 of the Equality Act states:

“26Harassment

(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i)violating B's dignity, or

(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(2)A also harasses B if—

(a)A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).

(3)A also harasses B if—

(a)A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to gender reassignment or sex,

(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and

(c)because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.

(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—

(a)the perception of B;

(b)the other circumstances of the case;

(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—

age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.”


Where in the Act does it state that harassment involves repeated incidents?

gilett

Comms69 wrote: »

No. It should be investigated to see IF it was racially motivated (or homophobic etc.)

No. the legal benchmark is if the complaint 'percieves' it as such. Perception is the key here.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elderly-woman-questioned-police-hate-13535704.amp

gilett

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean as an openly Gay man...i have visions of Camp guys begging for attention through wildly over the top actions and then pretending to mortally offended as someone has dared look at them...through the over the top actions..lol

I dont make a point of living an openly Heterosexual lifestyle...i just get on with life.

And I don't make a point at work of being openly gay. I keep my private life private, hence why I don't have the problems the op has. Personally I think he should have just kept it to himself in this instance.


Re the rest of your post, I think we're on the same page lol

HendrikSavoo

Thanks all, for the replies, I keep checking back here every couple of days to read new posts.

I think it has been about 8 weeks now since I was "outed", and the silliness from the homophobic quarter hasn't died down yet - I don't think it is worth wasting my time with them anymore.

The way I deal with the situation though is to pretend I don't know what's going on - because although snidey remarks have been made there has been no direct reference to my face. Therefore if I was as confident as I pretend I am, then I wouldn't be worried one slightest little bit.

The reality though is that I find it hard to hold back the tears when I am at work, even if only because I have made myself look like a closet case living a double life (not true, and the guy who "outed" me knows that, too).

To all who suggest reporting to HR, most supermarkets in the UK no longer have HR departments in each store, so I am unaware of the process required. I don't rate senior management enough to think they will deal with the problem, so it's HR or nothing I'm afraid.

sangie595

HR are not police departments, and nor are they on your side. They are there to protect the employer. Whatever their location!

silverwhistle

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

I dont make a point of living an openly Heterosexual lifestyle...i just get on with life.

That is an incredibly prattish statement.



Unfortunately there are still people around, reinforced in their opinions by the tabloid press, who will quite happily talk about their wives and girlfriends, but then complain about gay people "flaunting their sexuality" when they mention their partners.


Fortunately this isn't as common as it used to be. As for gilett'scomments about not being openly gay; well, I've never made any official announcements anywhere, but I'll be damned if I'm going to worry about guarding my words. I never said anything when I was teaching English to ME military cadets, although I'd be surprised if they didn't suspect the lack of a husband at my age!


That said, I think the OP needs to take a more detached view and not make so many assumptions about other peoples' attitudes. The word "admitting" normally refers to guilt, and most of the people I have contact with couldn't give a wotsit about someone being gay.

xapprenticex

silverwhistle wrote: »

That is an incredibly prattish statement. No its not



Unfortunately there are still people around, reinforced in their opinions by the tabloid press, Tabloid press is old hat, who buys newspapers nowadays? certainly not my generation. A person is entitled to their opinion last i checked, regardless. who will quite happily talk about their wives and girlfriends, but then complain about gay people "flaunting their sexuality" when they mention their partners. I have not witnessed this, maybe your experience, not mine though. I've heard gay men mention their partners, I'm not rude about it and personally i dont enquire any further.


Fortunately this isn't as common as it used to be. As for gilett'scomments about not being openly gay; well, I've never made any official announcements anywhere, but I'll be damned if I'm going to worry about guarding my words. I never said anything when I was teaching English to ME military cadets, although I'd be surprised if they didn't suspect the lack of a husband at my age! Sometimes it feels like the world revolves around us but unless they were attracted to you i doubt they cared about your personal life and were more concerned with what they were having for dinner that day.


That said, I think the OP needs to take a more detached view and not make so many assumptions about other peoples' attitudes. The word "admitting" normally refers to guilt, and most of the people I have contact with couldn't give a wotsit about someone being gay. Immune to the tabloids i suppose

..........