Is This Discrimination? Spouse Denied Job
Discussion
I'll be keeping this somewhat vague I'm afraid, and I'm not so much looking for advice as wanting to confirm if I'm correct.
Someone I know had a job interview, the manager interviewing them liked them, and wants to employ them for the role.
HR have said they do not want to employ them, as their spouse already works for the company (in an unrelated role).
The company already has employees who are couples (unmarried, but living together and have kids etc) or siblings/otherwise related.
They have previously worked at the company in a role more closely related to their spouse's position, but this was as the employee of a company contracted to do certain tasks, not as an employee of the company their spouse works at.
I believe this is clear cut discrimination per the 2010 Equality Act, yes/no? And yes, HR have stated this as a reason not to want them to have the role, when the interviewing manager is happy to have them.
My immediate thought is "not only can you not do that, you so blatantly can't do that, I'm amazed you'd think you can".
The spouse already employed is a union member and will no doubt be discussing it with them.
Someone I know had a job interview, the manager interviewing them liked them, and wants to employ them for the role.
HR have said they do not want to employ them, as their spouse already works for the company (in an unrelated role).
The company already has employees who are couples (unmarried, but living together and have kids etc) or siblings/otherwise related.
They have previously worked at the company in a role more closely related to their spouse's position, but this was as the employee of a company contracted to do certain tasks, not as an employee of the company their spouse works at.
I believe this is clear cut discrimination per the 2010 Equality Act, yes/no? And yes, HR have stated this as a reason not to want them to have the role, when the interviewing manager is happy to have them.
My immediate thought is "not only can you not do that, you so blatantly can't do that, I'm amazed you'd think you can".
The spouse already employed is a union member and will no doubt be discussing it with them.
bad company said:
paulrockliffe said:
InitialDave said:
wanting to confirm if I'm correct.
You're not.These sorts of restrictions aren't unusual.
While there may be a successful case here - it's impossible to know as Dave is being deliberately light on the details - it's a long way from "not only can you not do that, you so blatantly can't do that, I'm amazed you'd think you can".
I think the Equality Act's consideration of marriage means marriage in general, rather than to a specific person. The ACAS site explains it:
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
Being married to a specific person wouldn't necessarily be covered - after all, how many companies would employ the spouse of their closest competitor?
IANAL, but there's one on this thread - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong!
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
Being married to a specific person wouldn't necessarily be covered - after all, how many companies would employ the spouse of their closest competitor?
IANAL, but there's one on this thread - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong!
My reaction was based on marriage being a protected characteristic, and the indirect/ancillary factors of being family members, cohabitation, having kids etc are all already present in people employed, without it being remarked on.
The only difference is martial status, which combined with a statement that this was the reason, seemed like pretty much the exact definition of direct discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic.
Edit: I apologise for being vague if it affects how the situation can be interpreted, but as it's not me, I don't want to give so much detail as to make them readily identifiable, even if that's a very unlikely scenario.
The only difference is martial status, which combined with a statement that this was the reason, seemed like pretty much the exact definition of direct discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic.
Edit: I apologise for being vague if it affects how the situation can be interpreted, but as it's not me, I don't want to give so much detail as to make them readily identifiable, even if that's a very unlikely scenario.
Edited by InitialDave on Tuesday 7th May 09:55
Also, the two roles are sufficiently different/separate that I cannot see there being a conflict of interest problem.
Whereas some of the other employees with family/relationship links it could be argued there is. I don't think there is, or they'd do anything wrong, but trying an angle of "their relationship might conflict with their work" would be a red flag for other existing employees long before this married couple.
Whereas some of the other employees with family/relationship links it could be argued there is. I don't think there is, or they'd do anything wrong, but trying an angle of "their relationship might conflict with their work" would be a red flag for other existing employees long before this married couple.
N Dentressangle said:
I think the Equality Act's consideration of marriage means marriage in general, rather than to a specific person. The ACAS site explains it:
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
Being married to a specific person wouldn't necessarily be covered - after all, how many companies would employ the spouse of their closest competitor?
IANAL, but there's one on this thread - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong!
Broadly, treating someone differently because they are married would be direct discrimination, treating them differently because they are married to a particular person would be indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination can be a legitimate course of action under certain circumstances.http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1831
Being married to a specific person wouldn't necessarily be covered - after all, how many companies would employ the spouse of their closest competitor?
IANAL, but there's one on this thread - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong!
The details of the case, rolls of both parties, level of seniority, wider company policy and business environment will all combine to determine whether the discrimination is proportionate and justifiable or not.
The practical difficulty is that if a claim was brought the company would put up a defence and the claimant would find it very difficult to argue against that defence as someone on the outside looking in.
StevieBee said:
Putting the legal issues to one side, I suspect this may provide a clue as to why HR aren't that enamoured with them joining the firm.
No, the one already here is in the union. No idea if the one looking to take a job is.Lots of union members amongst the workforce, it wouldn't really make much difference either way.
As always with these threads, what are you (they) hoping to achieve?
HR don't want the person, so they have said so, as is their right, they've made up a b
ks reason and if (big if) its illegal whats the next course of action? Take them to court?
So many people on this forum are desperate to get involved in hugely stressful situations its crazy
Didn't get the job, maybe the other half is an absolute pain in the arse and HR know this and don't want them in. Maybe the other half is playing away with the HR lady or someone
Just move on surely?
HR don't want the person, so they have said so, as is their right, they've made up a b
ks reason and if (big if) its illegal whats the next course of action? Take them to court? So many people on this forum are desperate to get involved in hugely stressful situations its crazy
Didn't get the job, maybe the other half is an absolute
pain in the arse and HR know this and don't want them in. Maybe the other half is playing away with the HR lady or someoneJust move on surely?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I wanted to know if I was correct that what they're doing would be considered discriminatory.I assume they want the job.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Cant say it'd upset me if they did, but it makes no difference to me other than how it relates to my opinions on how to run a business.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff