|
Landmark Ruling On Homophobic Taunts
[ B-F-P: The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been around over a year, and there have been exponential inundated cases of discrimination, victimisation and Harassment, and NOW over a year later the first case to win. Why Has their only been one winning case?]
Landmark ruling on homophobic taunts
By Martin Wainwright / The Guardian
Saturday January 29, 2005
A manager who was persistently taunted about being gay by senior colleagues won a landmark case yesterday under new laws against sexual discrimination at work.
Rob Whitfield, 28, had been earning £54,000 at a waste management company until constant belittling and goading by other executives forced him to leave last year. His victory at an employment tribunal is the first successful case brought under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Act, and is expected to set a benchmark for employers who fail to stamp out anti-gay or lesbian harassment. He was awarded £35,345 in compensation for constructive unfair dismissal, harassment and discrimination.
The tribunal in Stratford, east London, found that the company, Clean away of Brentwood in Essex, had been woefully lax about coming to his aid, despite previous complaints by another gay member of staff. A three-strong panel was told that Mr Whitfield, who never made an issue of his sexuality on the grounds that it was personal and not work-related, was mercilessly got-at by members of the senior management team.
He was nicknamed "Sebastian" by fellow managers after the political aide played by David Walliams in the TV series Little Britain, who constantly tries to seduce a Blair-like prime minister. The company's marketing director Paul Jackson also repeatedly called him "dear" after he ordered a kir royale - perceived as a "feminine" drink - at a business conference. Other staff, including junior ones, portrayed Mr Whitfield as "abnormal" and called him "queer", a "queen" and someone who liked "poofy drinks and handbags", the tribunal was told. The chair of the tribunal, Vivienne Gay, described the taunts as going far beyond occasional sallies.
Giving the panel's verdict, she said: "The damage done here was more than a bruise. Although the acts were not of the grossest kind - for example there was no physical abuse - the number of incidents, the repetition and the persistence constitute enough verbal blows to cause a substantial haemorrhage."
Mr Whitfield, who was described by the panel as "an honourable and reliable witness", told the hearing that he had been forced out of Cleanaway by the sustained homophobic campaign. The tribunal accepted his claim of constructive unfair dismissal and added sharp criticism of the company's failure to accept or deal with the problem.
Ruling that Mr Whitfield had been a victim of both harassment and direct discrimination, Ms Gay said Cleanaway's human resources department had failed to ensure that senior managers understood that references to sexual orientation were not acceptable. In a statement to the tribunal, Mr Whitfield said: "I had never made any references to my sexuality at work at any time because I considered this to be a private matter. "I also did not want to be judged primarily as a gay man and secondly as a conscientious, highly skilled and hardworking manager.
"I was extremely shocked, surprised and disappointed when people made wholly inappropriate comments to me about my sexual orientation, especially when these comments came from senior staff and, frankly, from people who should have known better than to make offensive, insulting and upsetting comments."
Alan Wardle of the gay and lesbian rights group Stonewall said the verdict sent a clear message to employers that bullying of lesbians and gay men at work was no longer going to be tolerated. "The idea that this is just joking and banter isn't acceptable any more," he said. "Twenty or 30 years ago that's what people said about jokes about 'Pakis'. It's offensive and employers have no excuse for inaction.
"There's plenty of guidance and help available about the new law and this case shows what will happen if it isn't followed."
___________________
[Why is this the first case to win Alan Wardle from Stonewall? B-F-P sent a 150 page confidential investigation dossier to Stonewall in 2003 before the Sexual Orientation Regulations became law, basically explaining a fraud and a prediction that the chances of winning any cases are about as much chance as winning the national lottery because a massive deliberate illegal fraud within the writing of the legislation. And Stonewall not only did nothing to stop it, they never ever even exploited this fraud, when they knew all about it and had plenty of time to fight against those sections of the Bill. Its been a year since legal enforcement of the S,O Regulations and hundreds of thousands of claims have been made to no avail, I wonder why only one man won?...]
|
