The law and gay workers PREJUDICE RULES RIGHTS®

Scan page 8

About a year ago, susan Shell, a nightcare attendant in a residential home for giris, was similarly dismissed for admitting her homosexuality. A gay civil servant was asked to move offices almost immediately after a previous transfer because, according to Michael Foot, Minister for the Department, he was "an unsuitable person to be put in an office where the 'Acceptable" - open show o heterosexual affection 'Their main reason tor and, therefore, sate to making • this decision? remain in his job. mainly administrative 'and of that of many dismissed Like the demand for abortion rights, the call for gay rights is a das Gey people fly in the face of sexual stereotypes. women protest against Miss World' contest. THE CASE of Judith Williams, sacked from her job for being a lesbian, is. unfortunately, nothing particularly unusual. public might have access' Tony Whitehead, trainee manager with British Home Stores, was forced to resigned alter he appeared on a television programme about being gay. Apparently GAY there was a danger that customers might not want to buy goods from a homosexual!

A woman teacher was informed that she was 'medically unfit' teach. According to the Occupational Health Officer, "A lesbian cannot be trusted to teach in a girls' school where some of the girls are quite well developed"

These examples represent just the tip of the iceberg of anti-gay discrimination at work. Many other cases, particularly involving gay women, 'workingclass gays or gay members of ethnic minorities who have problems enough anyway, remain unknown.

Unlike racial discrimination or discrimination on une grounds of Sex marital status, is anti-gay discrimination not outlawed by legislation.

No one is suggesting that the Race Relations Act, can show that she or he has Sex Discrimination Act or been unfairly dismissed.

Equal Pay Act are the The Employment Protecpanacea for all the ilis of tion (Consolidation) Act discrimination, tar from it 1978 provides an employee (especially after Denning's with the basic right 'not parting shot on the issue of to be unfairly dismissed by Sikhs). they do, however, his (sic) employer' • alindicate some kind though the Tories have now recognition of the problems limited this right to emfaced by women and racial ployees who have worked groups. Homosexuals just for the same employer for don't seem to exist at all! 52 weeks (longer in small As a result of this, many firms).

discriminatory practices at Dismissal will be fair if work can continue with it relates to one of four impunity - victimisation, no specified reasons, includpromotion, no jobs to gays. ing the workers' capability The only situation where to do the job and her or his there is any scope for legal conduct, or for 'some other redress is if a gay worker substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee held.' The employer must also have acted 'reasonably' In other words, the determination of a fair or unfair dismissal is left largely to the whim of the industrial tribunal or court general anti-gay bias, corruption theory leaking homosexuality with child molesting and evil influence), let alone the bourgeois male propensities of tribunal members, it is unsurprising that of the few gay workers who have claimed unfair dismissal, even fewer have succeeded.

Initially, unfair dismissal cases are decided by local industrial tribunals. If the employer or employee is not satisfied with the tribunal decision, then she or he may be allowed to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a more authoritative ruling, from there to the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the House of Lords.

No gay worker has, however taken a case further than the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In fact, only four cases have ever got that far.

It was the 1980 case of Saunders V. Scottish National Camps Association where the Employment Appeal Tribunal came down most heavily on the side of the employer to effectively legalise discrimination against homosexuals.

John was a Saunders maintenance handyman at a children's camp. He was dismissed when his employers discovered he was gay.

According to a letter they sent him: 'The reason is that information was received that you indulge in homosexuality. At a camp accommodating large numbers of schoolchildren and teenagers it is totally unsuitable, to employ any person with such tendencies' Despite a psychiatrist's report stating that Saunders was neither promiscuous nor attracted to children and evidence that homosexuals are no more likely to 'interfere' with children than heterosexuals, the Industrial Tribunal declared the dismissal fair. This decision Wis upheld on appeal.

Not justified Having accepted that dismissal purely on the grounds of homosexuality probably had no scientific justification, the Employment Appeal Tribunal cleverly sidestepped a contentious issue. The employer, it stated, could not be faulted for doing 'what in his judgement is just and proper.

Effectively, therefore, an employer may legally dismiss a gay worker simply on the grounds of her/his sexuality despite proof that such action is totally arbitrary and the result of mere prejudice.

Because decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, unlike those of individual Industrial Tribunals, have the force oi precedent (i.e., oblige future Industrial and Employment Appeal Tribunals to decide similar cases in the same way) Saunders' case jeopardises the employment of thousands. Its implications extend far beyond the gay workforce too.

In a later 1980 Employment Appeal Tribunal case, the Saunders decision was used to justify the dismissal of an epileptic worker. In effect, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has legalised a purge of those 'undesirable' sections of the workforce that smacks more of Hitler-style fascism than so-called British democracy' In the interests of objectivity (to maintain a Fleet Street tradition!), it must be said that, unlike the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Industrial Tribunals have, on occasion, supported gay employees' claims of unfair dismissal. Ironically, though, the reasoning behind their support has often been motivated by and actually seems to reinforce anti-gay prejudice.

In a 1976 case, for example, concerning senior social worker, lan Davies, dismissed aiter a conviction for gross indecency, the Industrial Tribunal ruled that the dismissal had been unfair and recommended immediate reinstatement.

' No contact

Ian Davies' work was "Unacceptable" - open show of out' in their masses did not bring him into contact with members of the community, .. except occasionally, and then only in groups ... '! In other words, the tribunal accepted that homosexuals are potentially a dangerous species but, in this instance, the employee was out of the way of temptation Davies' case is typical

----- pull-quotes -----

Miss STAKE By