Business Law and Ethics

THE CASE BETWEEN TOM (CLAIMANT) vs. READPUB (DEFENDANT)

Claimant

“It is against the law for someone you work for to treat you less favourably than other workers because of your sexuality, that is, because you are lesbian, gay or bisexual. The law calls this direct discrimination.”

Before employed by the Readpub, Tom had an interview with the management of Realpub. In the interview there was discussion about the character reputation of the pub and the future strategy and plan of the pub with which Tom agreed. So it unwise to claim that he was unaware about the prospect and future actions of the pub and therefore there is no question of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

“This is not a gay pub” vs. “Under new management…friendly staff.”

“It is also against the law for someone you work for to have rules, policies or practices, which though not aimed at you personally, put you at a disadvantage because of your sexual orientation.”

When Mr. Peters (General Manager) was instructed by Mr. James (Red Pub senior manager) on 7 Dec to display a board outside the pub saying “this is not a gay pub”, that was a very straight forward sex discrimination message not to Tom and his gay workmates but also to pub’s regular customers. It’s very clear and direct sex discrimination message as if, it’s telling “Gay customers, you are not welcome anymore, this is a place for straight customers only.”

There is no discriminatory policy if any company or organization took any repositioning policy or strategy to broadening their business or interest. So it was held as Tom vs. Readpub that widening the clientele of Readpub is not unlawful. From the fact we can say that whenever Mr Tom was asked to display a sign outside the pub saying 'this is no longer a gay pub' he objected and suggested an alternative notice which was accepted like “under new management…friendly staff”. The fact itself proves that the Readpub was not directly taken initiative on the ground of...