Too fat for my uniform

elsien

Parent bought a bra off a market stall abroad. Chap (without warning) cupped both boobs and told her what size he thought. To be fair, he did get it right. 

Takmon

Masomnia said:

Silvertabby said:

dinglebert said:

HOWEVER - there is one interesting case of regulated discrimination - as recent as 2017 (and it may still be the case), it was impossible for a male/man to train and become a Mammographer. No other reason, you are a man, you can't do this, but it was covered by regulations that I cant be bothered to find/link but just use Google if you are interested.

I knew there was a reason why I wasn't getting an interview.

Some years ago, I did a course that included an element of employment law.  One example was a lingerie shop who advertised for a bra fitter, only women applicants accepted.  This was legal at the time (still is?) but a man made a fuss about 'discrimination'. 

 He didn't win - probably because when asked why he wanted this job, he replied 'because I love tits'.  

You can justify that sort of discrimination if you can show it's a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', and if it's a job like bra fitting that involves intimate contact with someone else you can show it's a legitimate aim to just want women for that role, as female customers will usually only want a woman doing it; same with mammography. Where the law would stand now with a trans woman would be interesting.

Back to the OP I think you just need to ask nicely for a larger size uniform and don't be embarrassed about it. Obesity can count as a disability under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't go in guns blazing with that.

So using the same logic if customers only wanted white people doing it then do you think that would mean the employer could reject all applications from non white people?. I don't see how customer preference would trump discrimination law.

fred246

I remember it being announced how many billions of pounds the government had spent on ensuring single sex wards in hospitals. Every male I asked wasn't bothered at all. So the government was spending billions to keep women happy. I thought wards for people are fine. Any human allowed. It's getting more complicated anyway. Which wards do the trans patients go on?

LittleVoice

fred246 said:

I remember it being announced how many billions of pounds the government had spent on ensuring single sex wards in hospitals. Every male I asked wasn't bothered at all. So the government was spending billions to keep women happy. I thought wards for people are fine. Any human allowed. It's getting more complicated anyway. Which wards do the trans patients go on?

Sorry - rather off the point of the thread now
Single sex wards - I'm female and stayed on a ward which had bays of single sex (male or female) but we could wander around into a "common" areas which was mixed.  Somehow the bays (each of 4 patients but each bay could be either sex) didn't stop it meeting criteria for single sex wards.

elsien

They used to have mixed wards on the psychiatric intensive care wards until fairly recently. Many women in hospital have a background of abuse. Some men are there on a prison section; there can be a high level of shouting, verbal and sometimes physical aggression. There can be people walking around with very few clothes on. There can be people who are sexually disinhibited because of their illness. 
Any money spend for segregated wards is money well spent as far as I am concerned. And the trans person waiting to transition from male to female was on the male ward, for information. 

Hauzen

Takmon said:

Masomnia said:

Silvertabby said:

dinglebert said:

HOWEVER - there is one interesting case of regulated discrimination - as recent as 2017 (and it may still be the case), it was impossible for a male/man to train and become a Mammographer. No other reason, you are a man, you can't do this, but it was covered by regulations that I cant be bothered to find/link but just use Google if you are interested.

I knew there was a reason why I wasn't getting an interview.

Some years ago, I did a course that included an element of employment law.  One example was a lingerie shop who advertised for a bra fitter, only women applicants accepted.  This was legal at the time (still is?) but a man made a fuss about 'discrimination'. 

 He didn't win - probably because when asked why he wanted this job, he replied 'because I love tits'.  

You can justify that sort of discrimination if you can show it's a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', and if it's a job like bra fitting that involves intimate contact with someone else you can show it's a legitimate aim to just want women for that role, as female customers will usually only want a woman doing it; same with mammography. Where the law would stand now with a trans woman would be interesting.

Back to the OP I think you just need to ask nicely for a larger size uniform and don't be embarrassed about it. Obesity can count as a disability under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't go in guns blazing with that.

So using the same logic if customers only wanted white people doing it then do you think that would mean the employer could reject all applications from non white people?. I don't see how customer preference would trump discrimination law.

Schedule 9 part 1 (1)(1)(a) of the equality act 2010 is particularly relevant to social care where, for example, social care agencies can specifically recruit only certain genders if a client has a particular preference or need for same gender personal care. It would need to be made explicit in the job advertisement, and the relevant section as detailed above mentioned in the advert, but it would absolutely be permissible as long as it is proportionate and reasonable in achieving a legitimate aim. 

[Deleted User]

elsien said:

Parent bought a bra off a market stall abroad. Chap (without warning) cupped both boobs and told her what size he thought. To be fair, he did get it right. 

Sounds like an assault.

Takmon

Hauzen said:

Takmon said:

Masomnia said:

Silvertabby said:

dinglebert said:

HOWEVER - there is one interesting case of regulated discrimination - as recent as 2017 (and it may still be the case), it was impossible for a male/man to train and become a Mammographer. No other reason, you are a man, you can't do this, but it was covered by regulations that I cant be bothered to find/link but just use Google if you are interested.

I knew there was a reason why I wasn't getting an interview.

Some years ago, I did a course that included an element of employment law.  One example was a lingerie shop who advertised for a bra fitter, only women applicants accepted.  This was legal at the time (still is?) but a man made a fuss about 'discrimination'. 

 He didn't win - probably because when asked why he wanted this job, he replied 'because I love tits'.  

You can justify that sort of discrimination if you can show it's a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', and if it's a job like bra fitting that involves intimate contact with someone else you can show it's a legitimate aim to just want women for that role, as female customers will usually only want a woman doing it; same with mammography. Where the law would stand now with a trans woman would be interesting.

Back to the OP I think you just need to ask nicely for a larger size uniform and don't be embarrassed about it. Obesity can count as a disability under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't go in guns blazing with that.

So using the same logic if customers only wanted white people doing it then do you think that would mean the employer could reject all applications from non white people?. I don't see how customer preference would trump discrimination law.

Schedule 9 part 1 (1)(1)(a) of the equality act 2010 is particularly relevant to social care where, for example, social care agencies can specifically recruit only certain genders if a client has a particular preference or need for same gender personal care. It would need to be made explicit in the job advertisement, and the relevant section as detailed above mentioned in the advert, but it would absolutely be permissible as long as it is proportionate and reasonable in achieving a legitimate aim. 

The way it's worded i don't see how someone having a particular preference for a female bra fitter is covered by this:

(a) it is an occupational requirement,

(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and

(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).

A preference is not a "occupational requirement" and i don't see how not wanting a man to do the job when a man would be just as capable is a "legitimate aim".

polgara

Hauzen said:

Takmon said:

Masomnia said:

Silvertabby said:

dinglebert said:

HOWEVER - there is one interesting case of regulated discrimination - as recent as 2017 (and it may still be the case), it was impossible for a male/man to train and become a Mammographer. No other reason, you are a man, you can't do this, but it was covered by regulations that I cant be bothered to find/link but just use Google if you are interested.

I knew there was a reason why I wasn't getting an interview.

Some years ago, I did a course that included an element of employment law.  One example was a lingerie shop who advertised for a bra fitter, only women applicants accepted.  This was legal at the time (still is?) but a man made a fuss about 'discrimination'. 

 He didn't win - probably because when asked why he wanted this job, he replied 'because I love tits'.  

You can justify that sort of discrimination if you can show it's a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', and if it's a job like bra fitting that involves intimate contact with someone else you can show it's a legitimate aim to just want women for that role, as female customers will usually only want a woman doing it; same with mammography. Where the law would stand now with a trans woman would be interesting.

Back to the OP I think you just need to ask nicely for a larger size uniform and don't be embarrassed about it. Obesity can count as a disability under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't go in guns blazing with that.

So using the same logic if customers only wanted white people doing it then do you think that would mean the employer could reject all applications from non white people?. I don't see how customer preference would trump discrimination law.

Schedule 9 part 1 (1)(1)(a) of the equality act 2010 is particularly relevant to social care where, for example, social care agencies can specifically recruit only certain genders if a client has a particular preference or need for same gender personal care. It would need to be made explicit in the job advertisement, and the relevant section as detailed above mentioned in the advert, but it would absolutely be permissible as long as it is proportionate and reasonable in achieving a legitimate aim. 

Actually for clarity its not gender (as its not a protected characteristic) but would be sex.  The protected characteristics are:

• age 
• disability
• gender reassignment (not gender identity - although that may change)
• marriage and civil partnership
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

TBagpuss

Takmon said:

Masomnia said:

Silvertabby said:

dinglebert said:

HOWEVER - there is one interesting case of regulated discrimination - as recent as 2017 (and it may still be the case), it was impossible for a male/man to train and become a Mammographer. No other reason, you are a man, you can't do this, but it was covered by regulations that I cant be bothered to find/link but just use Google if you are interested.

I knew there was a reason why I wasn't getting an interview.

Some years ago, I did a course that included an element of employment law.  One example was a lingerie shop who advertised for a bra fitter, only women applicants accepted.  This was legal at the time (still is?) but a man made a fuss about 'discrimination'. 

 He didn't win - probably because when asked why he wanted this job, he replied 'because I love tits'.  

You can justify that sort of discrimination if you can show it's a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim', and if it's a job like bra fitting that involves intimate contact with someone else you can show it's a legitimate aim to just want women for that role, as female customers will usually only want a woman doing it; same with mammography. Where the law would stand now with a trans woman would be interesting.

Back to the OP I think you just need to ask nicely for a larger size uniform and don't be embarrassed about it. Obesity can count as a disability under the Equality Act, depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't go in guns blazing with that.

So using the same logic if customers only wanted white people doing it then do you think that would mean the employer could reject all applications from non white people?. I don't see how customer preference would trump discrimination law.

Because there is a specific exemption built into the law  which recognises that there are some situations where it is legitimate to discriminate. Other examples include permitting employers to recruit women as rape counsellors or  staff at women's refuges,  to recruit gay men for jobs counselling / supporting vulnerable young men facing discrimination due to their orientation, to recruit men from certain ethnic groups  for gang prevention work where young men of similar backgrounds are targeted and so on.

With regard to bra fittings, again, it's stronger then preference - in a bra fitting you are in a vulnerable position and given the prevalence of sexist behavior, and the extremely high proportion of women's who have experienced sexual assault and sexual harassment it is a proportionate response.