Common Sense At Court
Discussion
The risk to national security means it has not discrimination to ban Chinese applicants from. Certain jobs .
Amazed it took a court ruling
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/banning-ch...
Guardian article said:
Judge Baty, sitting in London, described the email as clumsy and said: In complete isolation, it looks like an admission of direct race discrimination on the basis of nationality.
But he said in fact Xu had been turned down as she would not get security clearance because of her nationality.
The judge said: That reason would apply to people of any nationality where it was not possible to get security clearance (including Russian, North Korean and Iranian nationality as well as Chinese nationality). The reason is not nationality per se.
Basically a non-expert small company owner screwed up the paperwork by saying 'were not employing you because your Chinese, as the 'headline' with 'so you won't pass security clearance' as small text, when it should have been a headline 'were not employing you because you won't pass security clearance' with 'because your chinese' as small text, possibly with a rider of 'we will contact you if/when we have jobs not requiring clearance because we like you as a candidate...But he said in fact Xu had been turned down as she would not get security clearance because of her nationality.
The judge said: That reason would apply to people of any nationality where it was not possible to get security clearance (including Russian, North Korean and Iranian nationality as well as Chinese nationality). The reason is not nationality per se.
And of course anyone can take basically anything to court, until such time as a court slaps them down for intentionally wasting court time...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff