Religion and discrimination claims – why let common sense get in the way?

From the Solicitors Journal 08/08/11:

A Sikh council worker who refused to join an office fridge-cleaning rota because his religious beliefs banned him from touching or handling meat products could* be the victim of discrimination, the EAT has ruled.

*My emphasis! ;-)

The EAT heard that although all Sikhs were not necessarily banned from eating or touching meat, the claimant was a member of a revivalist branch with different rules.

A revivalist branch? *Rolls eyes*. OK, OK, carry on officer. ;-)

Delivering judgment in Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council(UKEAT/0487/10/JOJ), Recorder Luba said Mr Chatwal was a customer services adviser in the council’s technical services department.

Recorder Luba said that in 2008 the council introduced a requirement that staff using the communal kitchen must take part in cleaning the fridge.

“Having declined to comply with the fridge cleaning requirement, he did not participate in the rota and was, in consequence, not able to use the kitchen any longer.”

Oh for goodness’ sake: are Revivalist Sikhs prevented from popping on a pair of marigolds now? Or what’s stopping him scraping it out with a spatula and keeping the suspicious remains safely at arms’ length? Given the hideous condition of most workplace fridges and the diabolical remnants that lurk within, surely that’s what any sensible person would do, regardless of their ‘religion’.

And don’t get me wrong – I’ve every respect for religion and religious beliefs, but this is just silly.

'appiness for employers

From Roll on Friday 14/07/11:

Scottish firm MacRoberts has joined the twenty-first century and released an app for the iPhone, which allows bosses to find out just how cheaply they can get rid of unwanted employees.

Yay.  And what employer doesn’t want that facility?

I’m pleased to announce I’ll soon be adding something similar to the ever-expanding line of Law Actually products and services.   

Called the ‘fire-o-meter’ (Fireometer) “fire-omm-eater”... you get how I’m saying that - it’s frightfully important!!), it will use your smart phone’s camera and facial recognition technology to spy on your employees and measure their productivity.  

There’s a nifty little slider which an iPhone or Android wielding employer can use to set his or her expectation levels for individual employees and if the camera spies them falling below that standard, it will ping you an email alert telling you to get rid.   Windows Phone 7 users will have to carry on waiting for this app.  They’re clearly gluttonous for punishment anyway.  

The app niftily links in to your employee records to determine when they started work (for the purposes of calculating notice periods) and what role they hold (or should that be held?)

The Fireometer has three defined levels for dealing with unwanted employees:

1. For the once-useful and formerly valued members of staff, it will suggest a one-to-one meeting in which you fire them in person and give them a parting, it’s-nothing-personal slap on the back.  Helpfully, the Fireometer automatically sets up the calendar entries and the meeting request for you.  If you prefer, you can pre-record the firing message via the app and simply press play to avoid any unpleasantness of having to verbally fire the individual in person.
2. Secondly, there’s the standard firing by email or text with the requisite notice, (all  fully automated).  The email contains a video of Donald Trump in typical culling pose with his firing forefinger fully extended in which he shouts, “You’re lazy, you’re stupid, and you’ve been nothing but trouble... you know what [X], You’re Fired!!”. 
3. Finally, for the most egregious shirkers and generally hopeless employees (and, let’s face it, there are a lot of them out there)  it advises you to, ‘stick them out with the trash’.   You’re left to interpret that as you please.

Naturally, we’re following the freemium model; the above functionality is available in the free version.  However, the paid version of the app does two extra things:

1. It fires an email with all the relevant details off to a local law firm which specialises in employment law so they can help clear up the resultant mess.  (btw, we’ve bullet proof T&Cs... all liability is excluded... so don’t come crying to us when you find yourself with an appointment at an Employment Tribunal).
2. It cross-checks the details of the role the ex-employee was doing and sends off requests to recruitment agencies for a replacement.  (Out with the old and in with the new and all that!!)

We’re expecting that law firms and recruitment agencies will be anxious to be included in this service.  Btw, if that sounds like you, and you want to be added, just email: suckers@fireometer.com for our standard terms and rates.  ;-)

I think you’ll agree: this added functionality is the perfect time-saver for the slap-happy employer who doesn’t have the time to source their own employment lawyer or fresh stock of employees.

Abercrombie & Fitch worker banished to stockroom for breaking ‘look policy’

From the Daily Mail 16/06/09:

A disabled law student is suing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for discrimination, claiming it made her work in a stockroom because her prosthetic arm didn't fit its public image.

Riam Dean, 22, was just days into a part-time job at the U.S. firm's flagship London store when she says she was asked to leave the shop floor.

She was born with her left forearm missing and has worn a prosthetic limb since she was three months old but insists she has never allowed her disability to get in her way.

[Dean] was also given a uniform of jeans and a polo shirt, although the company handbook does state that sales associates can wear their own clothing as long as it is in 'Abercrombie style'.

Miss Dean, ... normally wears long-sleeved tops to disguise the join between her upper arm and artificial limb, says she was told to buy a plain white cardigan to wear over her uniform.

But matters came to a head a few days later.

'A worker from what they call the "visual team", people who are employed to go round making sure the shop and its staff look up to scratch, came up to me and demanded I take the cardigan off.

'I told her, yet again, that I had been given special permission to wear it,' she recalled.

'A few minutes later my manager came over to me and said: "I can't have you on the shop floor as you are breaking the Look Policy. Go to the stockroom immediately and I'll get someone to replace you."

'Afterwards I telephoned the company's head office where a member of staff asked whether I was willing to work in the stockroom until the winter uniform arrived.

'That was the final straw. I just couldn't go back.'

Miss Dean, who has just sat her final law exams, is due to take her case to the Central London Employment Tribunal later this month and is seeking damages of £25,000

 

Aside from the rather shocking issues of (alleged) discrimination here, it’s the fickleness of companies when it comes to uniforms which always astounds me. With a casual dress code such as the one Abercrombie & Fitch employed, policing the uniformity of the ‘uniforms’ with such uncompromising rigidity is frankly bizarre. Let’s remember that this debacle essentially kicked-off over a white cardigan (the same colour as the polo shirts which Abercrombie & Fitch require their shop floor workers to wear) and which the branch manager had verified as being suitable.  Anecdotally, I’ve heard recently of a well known chain in the British high street which employs a more conventional uniform and implements a ‘black sock only policy’.  This aspect they police in the manner of the Gestapo, yet inexplicably turn a blind eye to a couple of workers arriving to work in jeans and permit them to work at the tills.

More often than not panics over uniform are induced by a visit from head office – a guaranteed way of ensuring the management adopt a misguided and delusional sense of prioritisation in the immediate future. (Read as *more* misguided and delusional than usual). It’s ironic that employers worry excessively over policing uniform standards when it is the conduct and work ethic of their staff which remains the real problem.

But credit to Riam Dean here for having the fortitude to make a stand over this.  Perhaps she took employment law as an option on her LLB.  ;-)

Interestingly Abercrombie & Fitch settled over allegations of discrimination back in 2005 for $25 million.

Employees & the right to erm … play at work

From M24Digital 11/05/11:

A woman aged 36 was enabled by the justice [read court] to masturbate in her workplace because she has a strange disease.

This is the story of Ana Catarina Bezerra Silvares, an employee of an accounting firm, a divorced mother of three who lives in the village Vila Velha, Espírito Santo.

The woman suffers from a rare condition known as “compulsion orgasmic”, caused by a chemical alteration in the brain region of the cortex, which leads her to masturbate several times a day to relieve the deep anguish that it causes.

Under this circumstance, Bezerra started legal proceedings with the company where she works that eventually won and that enables to masturbate for 15 minutes every two hours, besides using the computer to see erotic images that stimulate her desire.

By the sounds of it, her desire doesn’t need any help being stimulated!!

The Brazilian newspaper North Regiao reported that the woman
confessed, “There was a day I had to masturbate 47 times”, adding: “I began to suppose that this could not be normal, and decided to seek help.”

Currently, Bezerra follows a treatment that includes a potent cocktail of sedatives which gets her to “only” masturbate 18 times a day.

I wonder whether an employment tribunal would have come to a similar conclusion should the situation have arisen in England or Wales. Does such a condition (assuming this is real*) constitute a disability for the purposes of disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010? I’m no employment law expert but the definition of ‘disability’ for these purposes seems pretty broad.

*(I suspect ‘compulsion orgasmic’ is a rather clumsy translation – I can’t find much on Google about it, apart from this story.   That said, am I getting the whiff of a fake story?)

I also wonder what arrangements the employer has had to make. Surely Silvares doesn’t just sit there in an open office, casually browsing porn and playing with herself? (Heck, that kind of thing has been known to draw an audience!) Couldn’t she scuttle off discreetly to the ladies loos when the need arises? If not, I hope she’s got a secluded office and protective cover on her office chair!!

Workplace Consultancy Services 101 – Lessons in Constructive Criticism

I’ve heard that a lot of commercial law firms who who offer employment law advice to businesses are increasingly branching out into offering a full package of services which used to be the domain of the dreaded ‘Human Resources’ department. You know the kind of stuff: materials for appraisals, psychometric tests, staff-engagement/happiness questionnaires and so forth. Personally, I think these services are a bit of a farce, irrespective of who provides them and commercial firms should know better than to sully their reputation by getting mixed up with them.

Anyhow, there was an absolute gem of a letter in the Digg Weekly Digest this week – a photo of a letter from some company’s human resources department who offered helpful suggestions in putting their constructive criticism across more, well, constructively!

Dear Employees,

It has been brought to **********’s attention that some individuals have been using foul language during the course of a normal conversation with their co-workers.
 
Due to complaints, this type of language will no longer be tolerated. However, we realize the critical importance accurately expressing your thoughts when communicating with co-workers. Therefore, we provided a list of 18 new and innovative "TRY SAYING" phrases so proper exchange of ideas may continue in an effective manner.

 

INSTEAD OF	TRY SAYING
You don't know what the f*** you're doing.	I think you could use more training.
She's a ball-busting b**ch.	She's an aggressive go-getter.
And when the f*** do you expect me to do this?	Perhaps I can work late.
No f***ing way.	I'm certain that isn't feasible.
You've got to be shi**ing me!	Really?
Tell someone who gives a sh**!	Perhaps you should check with...
It's not my f***ing problem.	I wasn't involved in the project.
What the f***?!	That's interesting.
This sh** won't work!	I'm not sure this can be implemented.
Why the f*** didn't you tell me sooner?	I'll try to schedule that.
He's got his head up his a**	He's not familiar with the issues.
Eat sh** and die!	Excuse me, sir?
Kiss my a**!	So you weren't happy with it?
F*** it, I'm on salary.	I'm a bit overloaded at the moment.
Shove it up you’re a**	I don't think you understand.
This job sucks!	I love a challenge.
Who the f*** died and made you boss?	You want me to take care of that?
He’s a pr*ck.	He’s somewhat insensitive

Thank You,

Human Resources

Truly inspiring!

Valentine’s warning – love bites, paralysis and… lawsuits?

Lest any of members the blawgosphere should get a bit carried away with Valentine’s Day tomorrow, the following should serve as a grave warning.

From FoxNews 21/01/11: 

A New Zealand woman was temporarily partially paralyzed by a hickey on her neck from her amorous partner, AFP reported Friday.

The 44-year-old woman went to the emergency department of Middlemore Hospital in Auckland last year after experiencing loss of movement in her left arm while watching television, doctors reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal.

Doctors concluded the woman had suffered a mild stroke but were puzzled about its cause until they found a small vertical bruise on her neck near a major artery, a hickey, she received a few days earlier.

"Because it was a love bite there would be a lot of suction," one of the doctors who treated her, Teddy Wu, told the Christchurch Press.

Oh yeah?  That’s what they all say! 

"Because of the physical trauma it had made a bit of bruising inside the vessel. There was a clot in the artery underneath where the hickey was."

Wu said the clot dislodged and traveled to the woman's heart, where it caused a minor stroke that led to the loss of movement.

"We looked around the medical literature and that example of having a love bite causing something like that hasn't been described before," he said.

I sincerely hope the ‘amorous’ lover was warned off from giving any repeat performances as well.

And is it just me, or is ‘hickey’ just the worst word ever? I’m sure the French have a better name for it. 

While I’m on the subject, Valentine’s Day has always struck me as being painfully clichéd but that doesn’t stop me joining in with the traditional rituals – in a romantic kind of way, of course.

Plus, I’ve never understood why some offices and other workplaces choose to mark the occasion with dress-down days in aid of charity, cheesy ‘auctions’, and God knows what else.  Thankfully, we’re not doing anything like that at work, and being the slightly grumpy and unadventurous sort, that suits me just fine. 

But on a serious note, I’m really not sure employers should be doing anything to encourage their more lecherous employees to enjoy a good ol’ grope whilst the going’s good. I suspect Valentine’s Day is second only to Christmas ‘mistletoe incidents’ for surges in workplace sexual harassment complaints. 

Still employment lawyers will no doubt welcome the business, as will those specialising in family & divorce when the inevitable catastrophe fully unfolds. 

Oh I’m such a cynic!

Winter Work Woes

From Outlaw.com 06/01/10:

Employers may be legally entitled to dock workers' pay if they stay at home because of snow and extreme weather, but such a course of action can be risky and cause resentment, according to guidance from Pinsent Masons.

[E]mployees are under a legal obligation to get to work and companies could withhold pay from those that stay at home because of the weather or ask them to make up the time later. But this is not necessarily the wisest course of action, the guidance said.

"Employees have statutory protection against an unauthorised deduction being made from their wages without their consent and deducting pay could potentially be challenged as unlawful under these provisions," said advice to employers produced by employment law specialists at the firm.

"You should therefore assess whether not paying employees would be in the best interests of your business. It may be that the financial burden to the business of paying staff in these circumstances is outweighed by the benefits that such a gesture would have on staff morale and productivity in the long run – especially if the snowfall is particularly heavy and it is impossible to get into the office," it said.

The heavy snowfall overnight made my journey into work this morning an absolute non-starter.  Our little cul-de-sac was buried under a good 3-4 inches, none of which had been treated of course and very few cars moved all day.  Interestingly, the few that did try their luck early on, slithered back (rather uneasily) shortly thereafter.

We walked out to the main road about 7.10 this morning (GF had to head in early, hence our ungodly hour of departure) and it looked an absolute ice/snow rink.  We were already hearing from the news that the buses and trains in our area had been cancelled, schools had been closed (seemingly without exception) and well, it was all a bit of a mess out there.

As it was, I worked from home all day (and been quite productive as it happens).

I really need to head into the office tomorrow so I’m going to make a herculean effort to make it in.  Quite where this deluge of snow and winter nastiness leaves my planned trip to London on Friday is anyone’s guess.