Discrimination in the workplace

[RudeDog]

If a company has a policy that is discriminatory to all employees who are in a relationship with a fellow employee but doesn’t specify that it only applies to married couples (being a protected class), is it therefore legal?

E.g. Employees with a Parter/Significant Other that also work for the company must share hotel rooms on business trips

Now in most cases, that might not be a problem because couples tend to want to stay together but is the policy an example of Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act of 2010?

Thanks for any thoughts or advice.

RD

[AndyTR]

Does your wife snore?

[anonymous-user]

AndyTR said:

Does your wife snore?

Nah, he wants to sleep with the lady on floor 3.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 15th March 19:40

[V8LM]

RudeDog said:

E.g. Employees with a Parter/Significant Other that also work for the company must share hotel rooms on business trips

Doesn't say with whom they have to share. Could well be the lady from floor 3.

[ging84]

seriously?
What are the chances that this is a policy that allows couples to share a room, and somewhere down the line someone has got the wrong end of the stick.

[surveyor]

Does he have to take his partner with him?

[daveinhampshire]

Can't see anyone being taken seriously objecting to sleeping with their own wife or husband even if it is discriminatory, can't see how you'd calculate damages.

[DanL]

What’s the complaint? That you’d rather not share a room?

[Efbe]

no

[lyonspride]

Sounds like the sort of thing that came about because someone took the piss...... Perhaps they had two rooms paid for and sold the other room at a discount rate to a friend? Perhaps they didn't do that all, perhaps they didn't do anything wrong, but the office "queen bee" whispered into the bosses ear and the boss believed it?

[RudeDog]

Thank you for the entertaining responses so far. I tried to use a simple example to illustrate the point but I clearly chose a bad one! This being PH, I should have known better...

The policy in question actually relates to an incentive trip (which forms part of the official compensation plan for sales people). People who qualify for it are invited to bring a guest (their Partner/Significant Other) however if both people work for the company and both qualify, they are expected to take each other and not bring a guest.

My question is specifically about whether the policy is in breach of the Equality Act of 2010. I know that if it was specifically relating to married people then it would be but because it also includes unmarried couples, does that make it alright?

I look forward to more humorous replies :-)

RD

[surveyor]

RudeDog said:

Thank you for the entertaining responses so far. I tried to use a simple example to illustrate the point but I clearly chose a bad one! This being PH, I should have known better...

The policy in question actually relates to an incentive trip (which forms part of the official compensation plan for sales people). People who qualify for it are invited to bring a guest (their Partner/Significant Other) however if both people work for the company and both qualify, they are expected to take each other and not bring a guest.

My question is specifically about whether the policy is in breach of the Equality Act of 2010. I know that if it was specifically relating to married people then it would be but because it also includes unmarried couples, does that make it alright?

I look forward to more humorous replies :-)

RD

If only one of the two hits the target I guess there is no issue. If they both do I can see how it feels unfair. The only saving though presumably is a hotel room.

Does not seem like discrimination to me. Both are still going to the event. Both are still getting a room. Employer is lucky enough to save a few £.

[Efbe]

surveyor said:

RudeDog said:

Thank you for the entertaining responses so far. I tried to use a simple example to illustrate the point but I clearly chose a bad one! This being PH, I should have known better...

The policy in question actually relates to an incentive trip (which forms part of the official compensation plan for sales people). People who qualify for it are invited to bring a guest (their Partner/Significant Other) however if both people work for the company and both qualify, they are expected to take each other and not bring a guest.

My question is specifically about whether the policy is in breach of the Equality Act of 2010. I know that if it was specifically relating to married people then it would be but because it also includes unmarried couples, does that make it alright?

I look forward to more humorous replies :-)

RD

If only one of the two hits the target I guess there is no issue. If they both do I can see how it feels unfair. The only saving though presumably is a hotel room.

Does not seem like discrimination to me. Both are still going to the event. Both are still getting a room. Employer is lucky enough to save a few £.

What kind of trip is it out of interest?

[DaveH23]

RudeDog said:

E.g. Employees with a Parter/Significant Other that also work for the company must share hotel rooms on business trips

Does your boss think the woman at work you're having an affair with is your actual partner?

[DanL]

Ah, ok. Interesting. At my place we have a similar incentive trip for top salespeople - they all go away at the same time to the same resort, as I understand it, rather than getting given a budget and told to book whatever they each fancy.

Assuming that it’s the same as our trip, I can understand why the policy is in place - the company clearly doesn’t want to pay for a couple to bring their friends along, but obviously if someone’s got a partner they should be able to bring them as a plus one to make the trip a nicer experience.

I’ve honestly no idea if it’s discriminatory or not, but putting that to one side you’ll need to think about the outcome you want. If it is found to be discriminatory, this is (presumably) easily fixed by removing the entitlement to bring someone else along...

[Heres Johnny]

Is that the wording or the implication?

If you're allowed to take your partner on a trip, and both you and your partner qualify for the trip, then you have no partner available to take as your guest as they're already going

You'll find any partner/spousal benefit could be the same - I have in the past had self and partner medical insurance as a benefit, if she worked there she'd have the same benefit and the only option we'd have had is to avoid one lot of benefit in kind. I couldn't decide to pass the medical insurance on to a neighbour/friend. In the old days you had to be married but that's thankfully been relaxed to partner.

If the reward is not for two people, and it's for you to be there with your partner then thats differentto "a holiday for two". There is a subtle difference and good wording of the policy would differentiate the two.

[DanL]

I think Here’s Johnny has it - the trip isn’t you plus one, it’s you plus partner. If it said hetero partners only, that would be discriminatory.

This also suggests that if you’re single you don’t get to bring a mate along, which is presumably the case.

[RudeDog]

Heres Johnny said:

Is that the wording or the implication?

Here is the actual wording:

<The company> appreciates the commitment your partner/significant other makes to support you to achieve success. Therefore we would like to extend an invitation for one guest to join you on this business trip. If they are unable to attend for any reason, you must get approval from your VP to bring another guest. We encourage you to take your significant other. If that is not applicable we ask you to consider one family member (parent or child over 21) or someone significant who has been supportive of all the hard work you have done.

- If your partner/significant other is a quota-bearing associate who has also qualified for <the incentive trip>, you should attend as a couple and not bring additional guests.

[RudeDog]

DanL said:

I think Here’s Johnny has it - the trip isn’t you plus one, it’s you plus partner. If it said hetero partners only, that would be discriminatory.

This also suggests that if you’re single you don’t get to bring a mate along, which is presumably the case.

Yes, I can see that's a good way of interpreting it.

If you're single, you can pretty much bring whoever you want and thats what people do. If you're in a committed relationship but your partner doesn't work for the company, there is no obligation to bring them, despite what the policy says. Several people in this situation will bring friends for a variety of reasons such as child care or simply because a fully expensed long weekend in somewhere like Miami is more fun without your partner!

[Efbe]

it is a bit odd for the company to bother with this wording. They are giving an incentive, so why take it away a little.

Obvious way around it is to say you are "on a break", and take some friends along, then magically make up on the trip out.