The Tyranny Of The HR Department

A major British industry group has been accused of publishing impractical guidance over whether self-identifying transgender women can use single-sex spaces. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) states in a guide that refusing a transgender person female-only facilities could be 'discrimination' in law.

The fact that this collection of blue-haired harpies who swallowed the Stonewall kool-aid is considered a 'major British industry group' at all gives you a good idea of why we are no longer a world-leader...  

But Maya Forstater, chief executive of gender critical group Sex Matters, said the charity - which represents HR professionals - should 'start again' with its approach.Former thinktank researcher Ms Forstater told the Daily Telegraph: 'We think the CIPD's guidance on trans and non-binary should be scrapped and started again. It's written in a way that sounds like it's taking everyone into account, but it's not usable.

Well, that rather depends on exactly who it was written for, Maya, and what its intended use was... 

'She added: 'The answer that 'you should consult and take legal advice' is not practicable. What we're talking about is a big company, retail or anywhere with lots of sites all over the country, some of them have a picture of a woman in a dress in the door.

They have a picture of a human figure in a dress. Whether that only applies to Brenda from the typing pool or includes Ron from Maintenance is what buys solicitors their next Ferrari...

'Are they female only? The answer can't be 'we'll take legal advice'. The answer has to be yes or no.'

Expecting a clear and unequivocal answer from HR departments? Might as well wish for a unicorn... 

Why Isn't It Up To A Company To Choose Where It Spends Its Money?

Media mogul Byron Allen's $10billion racial discrimination lawsuit against McDonald's was given the green-light to proceed by a US court on Friday, nearly a year after it was dismissed last December. Allen alleges McDonald's intentionally chooses not to pay to place advertisements on black-owned networks - including his own AMG Entertainment Studios and Weather Group - costing the networks millions in potential annual revenue.

So..? Isn't a company eentitled to choose where it spends its advertising revenue, then? 

An attorney for McDonald's, Loretta Lynch, reiterated that Olguin did not rule on the case's merits, and insisted the allegations were baseless.

'[The decision] has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case, but simply allows Mr. Allen to continue to try, as he has for more than a year now, to substantiate his speculative and conclusory claims,' Lynch said, 'We believe the evidence will show that there was no discrimination and that Entertainment Studios' claims are meritless.'

Why shouldn't there be discrimination, though? Why should any company be forced into advertising with specific sectors of the population, rather than where it feels that advertising will do the most good? 

Allen, in a statement, said the case was 'about economic inclusion of African American-owned businesses in the U.S. economy. McDonald's takes billions from African American consumers and gives almost nothing back.'

No, it gives them burgers and fries in exchange for their money. And that's all they are entitled to.  

The Decline Of Personal Responsibility Accelerates...

In a landmark case that has deep implications for other higher education institutions, the parents of Natasha Abrahart successfully sued the University of Bristol under the Equality Act.

Abrahart, 20, a physics undergraduate who suffered from severe social anxiety, died a day before she was due to give a “terrifying” oral exam in front of teachers and fellow students.

Shouldn't oral exams be expected to be a part of university life? 

Her parents sued the university under the Equality Act for not taking reasonable care of their daughter’s wellbeing, health and safety, arguing it did not do enough to help her despite staff knowing she had a disability and was struggling deeply.

In a judgment issued on Friday at Bristol county court, judge Alex Ralton said: “There can be no doubt that there was direct discrimination, especially once the university knew or should have known that a mental health disability of some sort was preventing Natasha from performing.”

So, the wicked university did nothing to help her? Hmmm, not quite. 

But not enough, according to her parents, who seem to have expected the university to accommodate their daughter, and not their daughter to accommodate the requirements of her chosen subject: 

Abrahart said his daughter struggled to speak to people she did not know, particularly people in positions of authority.

“Expecting Natasha to take part in oral assessments was like expecting a student in a wheelchair to take an exam in a room at the top of a long flight of stairs.”

Except it isn't. The student can be provided with an exam in a ground floor, but still has to take the exam. 

And the university did offer alternatives:

“Our staff’s efforts also included offering alternative options for Natasha’s assessments to alleviate the anxiety she faced about presenting her laboratory findings to her peers.

“Given the significant impact this decision could have on how all higher education providers support their students, we are reviewing the decision carefully, including whether to appeal.”

Maybe on appeal, we'll find out why those offered alternatives weren't deemed suitable, because it's not explicit in this article: 

The university has argued that it had tried to offer Abrahart alternatives to the oral presentation.

But the judge observed that, “whilst a few ideas” regarding possible adjustments were “floated” by the university, “none were implemented”.

Why not? Is it because she turned them down? It would be good to know, wouldn't it?