4 ms·

Might be worth asking Reddit's r/legaladvice (but take what they say with a grain of salt). In the UK this would be illegal afaik - you are only allowed to favo

Might be worth asking Reddit's r/legaladvice (but take what they say with a grain of salt). In the UK this would be illegal afaik - you are only allowed to favour one sex over the other if there are two equivalent applicants for a position and you are trying to counteract an existing imbalance in your team. But you can't outright reject one sex from the start.

anon926310 5y ago
Done! https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/sayz3d/am_i_being_instructed_to_do_something_illegal_dei/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/sayz3d/am_i_be...
- crackercrews 5y ago
  Lots of redditors saying go to HR. That is a bad idea. Your company's DEI initiatives probably originated in the HR department. Or they originated higher up, and HR was tapped to implement. Either way HR is not your ally.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
This is incorrect. I hired in the UK and we were legally discriminating based on people being "minority" or women. It sickens me. From Wikipedia: >"Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity."
- DangerousPie 5y ago
  Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start. I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    > Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start. How would one even begin to prove the difference? This seems like some sort of mental gymnastic to explain away well meaning discrimination. If I had a thing against men, I'd take their applications, maybe give a few of them interviews for the sake of plausible deniability without a plan to actually hire them. And fortunately for me, society is callously indifferent to men in general unless they are part of a protected class.
    - DangerousPie 5y ago
      Well that's a problem you always have with subjective decisions during hiring. At the end of the day you'll most likely get away with it unless you're being as blatant as OP's company. But it only takes one disgruntled whistleblower to get yourself into trouble. And at least historically it's usually been the men who benefitted from this.

anon926310 5y ago

Done! https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/sayz3d/am_i_being_instructed_to_do_something_illegal_dei/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/sayz3d/am_i_be...

crackercrews 5y ago
Lots of redditors saying go to HR. That is a bad idea. Your company's DEI initiatives probably originated in the HR department. Or they originated higher up, and HR was tapped to implement. Either way HR is not your ally.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

This is incorrect. I hired in the UK and we were legally discriminating based on people being "minority" or women. It sickens me. From Wikipedia: >"Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity."

DangerousPie 5y ago
Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start. I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  > Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start. How would one even begin to prove the difference? This seems like some sort of mental gymnastic to explain away well meaning discrimination. If I had a thing against men, I'd take their applications, maybe give a few of them interviews for the sake of plausible deniability without a plan to actually hire them. And fortunately for me, society is callously indifferent to men in general unless they are part of a protected class.
  - DangerousPie 5y ago
    Well that's a problem you always have with subjective decisions during hiring. At the end of the day you'll most likely get away with it unless you're being as blatant as OP's company. But it only takes one disgruntled whistleblower to get yourself into trouble. And at least historically it's usually been the men who benefitted from this.