Re: Sex discrimination or just bad management?
here are the findings
The respondent's primary answer for their behaviour was that (1) she was a sub-standard performer (2) she was leaving to work on an app
* Despite being the top earner, she was characterised as needing "hand-holding", but only after the complaint was made. Prior to the complaint, internal documents indicated she was a flight risk.
* All internal actions prior to the complaint show encouragement and rewards towards her. The "hand holding" description was not applied to other sales managers, who brought in less than her and also approached senior management for securing deals. The tribunal found that bringing in senior leadership to major customers was not uncommon in winning large/major contracts, and was done on other occasions by other employees. This "hand-holding" description was applied despite her winning the biggest accounts, (you could make the point that therefore the male sales managers also needed "hand-holding" as they were bringing in less revenue, but the tribunal did not make this finding). Only she was described as having this detriment. There was no supporting evidence provided as to why only she was characterised so, and as to why this description was disconnected with the revenue numbers she brought in. This detriment was never communicated to her. The described behaviours applied to her were specific, despite her behaviours being shared with other sales managers.
* When redistributing accounts, only she was given accounts of lower earning potential. Gracey already had known that the forecasted projections were amongst the lowest in their system (Salesforce and one more tool) The higher forecasted accounts, including her own older ones, were given to other sales managers, including existing ones not hired by Gracey. This is in spite of her being engaged in discussions over allocation at the time.
* These accounts were given to others because they were a flight risk, but the reason they did not want to give to her was that she was a flight risk. So same reason, but a different action only for this employee.
* They were aware that she would not be happy of not being told of the reallocations as that was the working assumption she was given when she left. When the discussions were occurring, she was singled out in not being engaged with. This was despite here responding to emails and communications on holiday.
* all these reallocations happened despite no material change occurring at the customer sides. The respondent claims there were but cannot provide any evidence of this. instead, in contrast, there is evidence of ongoing enagagement with her during her leave.
* When she was engaged for a resolution once she found out, they made no attempt to correct the situation. When the grievance was raised, the finding was to engage urgently.
When the grievance appeal was made, did they offer the bq account of reasonable potential. This account was available for disbursement prior to the grievance, however, was not offered to her despite her having the required skills and communicated that she wished for it. There are no compelling change or factor other than her complaint for her to be offered BQ. No explanation was offered by the respondent as to why BQ was considered suitable after the grievance but not before.
The employee was singled out - * in the description of behaviours and weaknesses that did not match their actions in remunerations and awards * in the disbursement of accounts both with new crony hires as well as the existing team * the account of potential was only given after the specific claim of gender discrimination was made, even though it was available all along * a pay disparity existed
Gracey had an opinion she was not good enough but was unable to show the tribunal why he had that view of only her. Note that he engaged with other members of the old team, only she was singled out.
And if he was committed to that view, why did he not ask for here to be put on a performance improvement plan. Instead after the complaint, he was willing to give a high-value account BQ to her, which contradicts the claim in his belief she was not good.
So all things being the same with the new crony hires and the old team, the difference left is her gender.
I think what you are really saying is that you do not accept a finding by elimination. here is an employee, indistinguishable in sales numbers, skills, experience and availability, yet is treated differently. You say that despite the difference being gender, it is not enough, because there are no controls. Even if the respondent offers no other explanation.
If you want to say that only discrimination has been conclusively proven here but gender discrimination cannot be proven as the IT population does not have a 50-50 split on gender yet, I guess I could be convinced that as a topic for further discussion. It might have been their fear of spectacle wearers as to why they singled her out. But then I expect them to offer this explanation on the cross to the tribunal.
Which is why I keep asking you cederic, in a hypothetical case, what evidence would you accept - but you keep sidestepping that question without giving any answer?
I'm only left to believe there is no evidence possible to satisfy you, and that you are really basically saying unconscious gender discrimination is never provable until there is a 50-50 split in gender distribution in all aspects of work and life, and until then this form of discrimination can never find justice.
However, on that front I am against gender quotes, only equal opportunity access for equal effort to both genders. I do not believe in enforced gender distributions. I'd want all barriers to be removed, not target quotas, but target barrier removals.
But this sort of hampering that keeps the gender distribution skewed for even the capable is wrong, and has happened here - they got rid of the one woman on the team, who happened also to be the most capable one at the time.