"Martin Nicholson" wrote in message
om...
The sex discrimination case is now three weeks away and, not
surprisingly, ACAS have been in touch.

Intial offer of £500 to £1000 from the County Council if we can agree
"form of words".

My view is that the sum of money on offer (at 10% of the claim) is far
too low and that the form of words would be bound to involve a gagging
clause.

I would welcome any advice.

I doubt if they have in mind a "gagging clause". That would be unusual. It
would probably be some sort of weasel-worded apology plus a form of words
that would represent a final discharge eg the ACAS wording. Gagging clauses
are not at all usual and in the unlikely event that they suggest one, you
should of course refuse. In my experience it is usually the applicant who
wants a gagging clause, so that other prospective employers don't get to
hear that he is a troublemaker. Your claim was of course fully justified and
I wouldn't call you a troublemaker but you wouldn't want them ringing up
another council and saying "we interviewed him and ended up being sued, so
watch it". It is of course more likely where you specialise in an area of
work where all the employers know each other.

"Wyliam" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:45:07 +0100, "tim"
wrote:




Having had experience of an ET. You are starting in the losing
position. The employer will show that they have relevant policies and
procedures and say that they followed them. They do not have to prove
that they followed them, they only have to _believe_ that they
followed them.

This is a discrimination case. The fact that an employer followed
their own procedures is irrelent if they are discriminatory.

If the employer has a policy that attempted to have an equal
number of men and women in a particular department and
that each time a man resigned they only considered
applications from men and a woman was rejected on this
basis, subject to the necessary documentation being available
the woman would win a discrimination case immediately.
On the basis of some previous similar cases they could be
awarded a high 5 figure sum (I believe at least one award
has been 6 figures). (the job in question was promotion
to a higher grade with a significant salary uplift)

Swap men and women around in the above and this is what,
in essence, it is claimed happened to Martin, 500 quid is
derisory.

OTOH _you_ have to prove that they did not; both follow them _and_
believe that they followed them. You need solid proof.

You only have to prove that you were discriminated against for
an illegal reason.

Do not rely on the Employer's solicitor for anything - they will use
every trick to thwart you. EG in my case I relied on them to submit my
statement bundle with theirs; of course they didn't.

ACAS are a waste of space.

The Tribunal are not independent; they start from being aligned with
the Employer.

I am sure you will find many employers who will tell you the
exact opposite. My gut feel is that it is the employers who are
right

tim

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:55:04 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

In your position I would probably be content with 2500 but that isn't based
on any objective benchmark. From what you have said, the respondent is
likely to lose and is likely to pay its lawyers more than 2500 from this
point up to the conclusion of the tribunal hearing, so it makes economic
sense for them to settle at more than 1000 pounds.

Looking at the wider issue, how is this type of award going to stop
the employers from continuing their discriminatory practice?

"IanAl" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:55:04 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

In your position I would probably be content with 2500 but that isn't
based
on any objective benchmark. From what you have said, the respondent is
likely to lose and is likely to pay its lawyers more than 2500 from this
point up to the conclusion of the tribunal hearing, so it makes economic
sense for them to settle at more than 1000 pounds.

Looking at the wider issue, how is this type of award going to stop
the employers from continuing their discriminatory practice?

Neither an out of court settlement nor a tribunal judgment will stop the
employers from continuing their discriminatory practice. The most you can
expect is that they will change their procedures so that it is no longer
obvious that they are discriminating. I expect their staff now appreciate
the disadvantages of being honest when asked why a candidate has failed to
get a second interview or a job offer.

Inevitably there will be times when an interviewer will have in mind a male
or a female when trying to fill a vacancy. I am sure a male would find it
difficult to get a job as a secretary, for instance. And in a firm of
solicitors where most of them are male, the interviewer might have decided
to try to find a female to redress the balance. But it is very foolish ever
to admit to doing such a thing.