Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    I probably used the wrong terminology. What I meant was it could be seen as discrimination under the equality act.
    How would it qualify as discrimination under the equality act?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happyinthehaze)
    I grant you, he hasn't shown very good judgement. But you, you know, it's likely that it is possible to take a more international view on it - think of it as more of a diplomatic international incident.

    It is what it is now; the thing CC will be thinking is, how to handle it and get a good result out of it. You just have to think a bit more laterally than you are perhaps currently thinking
    A close friend of mine is at CC. He's pretty much confirmed my view of it.

    A diplomatic international incident? Don't be daft
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    How would it qualify as discrimination under the equality act?
    It's the connection to the religion and the individual's beliefs. I am no expert in the matter (thankfully!) but I am sure it will be playing on everyone's minds somewhat and being taken into consideration.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    It's the connection to the religion and the individual's beliefs. I am no expert in the matter
    The Equality Act would only be relevant if by sacking him they were treating him more harshly than they would have treated a comparator (say, a white person) who made a ranty video of that sort.

    There really is no objective basis for an EA discrimination claim
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    A close friend of mine is at CC. He's pretty much confirmed my view of it.

    A diplomatic international incident? Don't be daft
    never mind
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It's damage limitation. When a fire starts, the best thing to do is contain it and starve it of oxygen - that's what they're doing.

    You seem to think that CC partners could give a rats ass about the development of their trainees or have some grand plan for them.... they don't
    Mm. You obviously did not take my point. It is just possible that there is an international perspective to this thing in terms of how CC clients across the world may view the ignoble cutting loose of a lad expressing an opinion about his beliefs.

    That's sweet though that you think that I think giant law firms care about their trainees! It's quite green of you - that thought had not occurred to me. When things go wrong in the work place, no-one gives a stuff about the unfortunate whose actions caused all the headache!! You will find that out no doubt
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Why be so rude? I thought you had some sort of standing around here. J-SP makes a lot of helpful comments on these forums - why be so rude about it? Or, you could, say, if you did know something about employment law, and surely you must, or you would not be so definite, explain it in a helpful way

    hugs

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Clearly.

    The Equality Act would only be relevant if by sacking him they were treating him more harshly than they would have treated a comparator (say, a white person) who made a ranty video of that sort.

    There really is no objective basis for an EA discrimination claim
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happyinthehaze)
    Why be so rude? I thought you had some sort of standing around here. J-SP makes a lot of helpful comments on these forums - why be so rude about it? Or, you could, say, if you did know something about employment law, and surely you must, or you would not be so definite, explain it in a helpful way

    hugs
    Sorry if I was a bit rude, it really irritates me when people make assertions about something they don't really know much about, and proceed as if what they're saying is self-evident rather than speculation that turns out to be wrong.

    You're right though, I shouldn't have been so narky, I'll edit my comment
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happyinthehaze)
    Mm. You obviously did not take my point. It is just possible that there is an international perspective to this thing in terms of how CC clients across the world may view the ignoble cutting loose of a lad expressing an opinion about his beliefs.
    I think you're mistaken in your view of the international situation. CC's Arab clients would not stick their neck out and damage their own business interests merely for a young trainee who has exhibited poor judgement.

    As I said, the Arab oil sheikhs value discretion. They also tend to be very wary of public displays of extremism.

    If there are any international considerations, it's that Clifford Chance's Jewish/Israeli clients might not appreciate it if they keep this guy on.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Here is the video if you haven't seen it. That guy was exercising his right of free speech he didn't say anything violent it's just his opinion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    The Equality Act would only be relevant if by sacking him they were treating him more harshly than they would have treated a comparator (say, a white person) who made a ranty video of that sort.

    There really is no objective basis for an EA discrimination claim
    I'd disagree - I think it would be easy to find comparisons of the nature.

    I might not be a legal expert (my employment law training/knowledge ended in 2006/7) but I understand the concerns that an employer would have about it from a practical perspective. In situations like this you try to cover every possible outcome, just in case.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    I'd disagree - I think it would be easy to find comparisons of the nature.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    :lol: It's not "comparison", it's "comparator". Tbh your saying you disagree is like a taxi driver telling an accountant he disagrees about the nature of a particular tax assessment.

    Just wanting something to be the case doesn't make it so. It would probably help if you had some basic knowledge about the Equality Act
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    :lol: It's not "comparison", it's "comparator". Tbh your saying you disagree is like a taxi driver telling an accountant he disagrees about the nature of a particular tax assessment.

    Just wanting something to be the case doesn't make it so. It would probably help if you had some basic knowledge about the Equality Act
    Wow - you are rude! I'm sorry I didn't follow your exact words correctly.

    But I'll stick to what I am saying, despite your patronising tone. There may not be a clear cut case for discrimination, but there will be a lot going on to check that definitely isn't the case/cannot be inferred in anyway from any information to hand, which we haven't got.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by al_94)
    Here is the video if you haven't seen it. That guy was exercising his right of free speech he didn't say anything violent it's just his opinion.
    Wow ...

    Ladies and gents who were worried they might not be smart enough to join firms like Chance, REJOICE! They take anyone, apparently.

    Hopefully CC have the good sense to drop him at the end of his training.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    Wow - you are rude! I'm sorry I didn't follow your exact words correctly.

    But I'll stick to what I am saying, despite your patronising tone. There may not be a clear cut case for discrimination, but there will be a lot going on to check that definitely isn't the case/cannot be inferred in anyway from any information to hand, which we haven't got.
    It has nothing to do with my words, we're talking about the words used in the act and in the caselaw. Do you realise how laughable it is for you to say, "I realise I don't have a clue about s13 EA 2010 discrimination, but I'm going to have an opinion about it anyway".

    It's even stranger in the sense that the treatment which you are asserting would give rise to a claim (the trainee being dismissed) hasn't even occurred yet!

    You might think I'm being rude, but I think you're being puerile. It's bizarre that a solicitor would be so cavalier about an area for which their knowledge is clearly non-existent.

    In any case, let's take a look. s13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 says;

    A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A would treat others
    So there are two elements; the discriminatory act has to be because of the protected characteristic (in this case, religion), and A must have treated B less favourably than they would have treated others in an identical situation.

    So say CC dismissed this trainee for gross misconduct; by publishing such an inflammatory statement that calls non-Muslims "kaffirs", the trainee has breached an implied term of trust and confidence by bringing the firm into disrepute, and he has destroyed the trust and confidence of his non-Muslim colleagues by using the "kaffir" slur thus making it impossible for them to go on working with him.

    The trainee tries to bring an s13 claim. In this case the protected characteristic is religion. Did A (Clifford Chance) treat B (trainee) less favourably (dismiss him) because of his religion?

    No. They dismissed him because he made an inflammatory statement that brought the firm into disrepute. CC has plenty of Muslim associates who they don't dismiss for being Muslim, and nothing about Islam inherently requires someone to make an inflammatory public statement. So we've established that any claim wouldn't meet the first limb of the test.

    Looking at the second limb, was that treatment less favourable in comparison to others. So a comparator would be a non-Muslim who made an inflammatory public statement. Luckily for us, we have a perfect comparator; a Clifford Chance trainee a couple of years ago was filmed drunk on a video that was uploaded to youtube, and he said "I work for a City law firm, I **** people over for money". They dismissed him.

    Even if we don't accept that comparator and construct a hypothetical comparator of a non-Muslim colleague who made a statement where they referred to colleagues of another religion by an inflammatory word (say a Jewish trainee made a video complaining about non-Jews and referring to them as "goyim") then it demonstrates clearly that the material element is the inflammatory statement, not the religion of B.

    So in summary, there's nothing in it. Any such claim would be laughed out of court.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    It has nothing to do with my words, we're talking about the words used in the act and in the caselaw. Do you realise how laughable it is for you to say, "I realise I don't have a clue about s13 EA 2010 discrimination, but I'm going to have an opinion about it anyway".

    It's even stranger in the sense that the treatment which you are asserting would give rise to a claim (the trainee being dismissed) hasn't even occurred yet!

    You might think I'm being rude, but I think you're being puerile. It's bizarre that a solicitor would be so cavalier about an area for which their knowledge is clearly non-existent.

    In any case, let's take a look. s13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 says;

    A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A would treat others

    So there are two elements; the discriminator act has to be because of the protected characteristic (in this case, religion), and A must have treated B less favourably than they would have treated others in an identical situation.

    So say CC dismissed this trainee for gross misconduct; by publishing such an inflammatory statement that calls non-Muslims "kaffirs", the trainee has breached an implied term of trust and confidence by bringing the firm into disrepute and destroying the trust by insulting his non-Muslim colleagues in that way.

    The trainee tries to bring an s13 claim. In this case the protected characteristic is religion. Did A (Clifford Chance) treat B (trainee) less favourably (dismiss him) because of his religion?

    No. They dismissed him because he made an inflammatory statement that brought the firm into disrepute. CC has plenty of Muslim associates who they don't dismiss for being Muslim, and nothing about Islam inherently requires someone to make an inflammatory public statement. So we've established that any claim wouldn't meet the first limb of the test.

    Looking at the second limb, was that treatment less favourable in comparison to others. So a comparator would be a non-Muslim who made an inflammatory public statement. Luckily for us, we have a perfect comparator; a Clifford Chance trainee a couple of years ago was filmed drunk on a video that was uploaded to youtube, and he said "I work for a City law firm, I **** people over for money". They dismissed him.

    Even if we don't accept that comparator and construct a hypothetical comparator of a non-Muslim colleague who made a statement where they referred to colleagues of another religion by an inflammatory word (say a Jewish trainee made a video complaining about non-Jews and referring to them as "goyim") then it demonstrates clearly that the material element is the inflammatory statement, not the religion of B.

    So in summary, there's nothing in it. Any such claim would be laughed out of court.

    As I said, if you're a solicitor, it's embarassing that you would be so cavalier about an area of law of which you clearly know little
    I never said I was a solicitor.

    But thank you for the information. You seemed to have missed my point though.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    You seemed to have missed my point though.
    I haven't missed any point. You asserted there was a basis for a discrimination claim.

    I have demonstrated you are wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    I haven't missed any point. You asserted there was a basis for a discrimination claim.

    I have demonstrated you are wrong.
    You clearly have. Thanks for the clarity though on the legal points though, it's helpful.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    You clearly have. Thanks for the clarity though on the legal points though, it's helpful.
    No problem. I apologise if I come on a bit strong, it does irritate me when I feel someone is speaking about something for which they lack knowledge but not strong opinions.

    I can understand that CC has taken the very sensible decision to, as someone said above, deprive this issue of the oxygen of publicity and they will let him go at the end of his training contract.

    I don't think that has anything to do with fearing a discrimination claim or worrying about what their Muslim clients will think (given they will let him go down the track anyway), it's simply a matter of ensuring the media spotlight moves on before they proceed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Woooow this is awkward.

    I only got to 8 minutes in until I had to turn it off. To be honest it just knocks me sick.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 6, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.