Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 7:19:16 GMT
Anyone know the concrete answer to this?
Can a UK company deny private healthcare benefits to same sex couples who are not married or in a civil partnership?
I'm sure that it has been illegal to discriminate against a person in the workplace on sexual preference since 2000
I've had a quick Google but am a bit time poor today.
Any info greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 20, 2018 7:34:20 GMT
Anyone know the concrete answer to this? Can a UK company deny private healthcare benefits to same sex couples who are not married or in a civil partnership? I'm sure that it has been illegal to discriminate against a person in the workplace on sexual preference since 2000 I've had a quick Google but am a bit time poor today. Any info greatly appreciated. The key piece of information is does the same company allow or deny private healthcare benefits to heterosexual couple who are not married. And I presume you mean to the non-employee half of the couple? If they don’t allow it for unmarried hetero couple then clearly they aren’t going to allow it for unmarried or un-civil partnered couple and that’s fine. This can’t be too unreasonable as how do you prove your “partner” is such and not just a random sick friend you are trying to help. But if they do allow the benefit for unmarried hetero couples then they would have to allow it for gay couples or be in breach of the equalities act 2010. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 7:44:43 GMT
Anyone know the concrete answer to this? Can a UK company deny private healthcare benefits to same sex couples who are not married or in a civil partnership? I'm sure that it has been illegal to discriminate against a person in the workplace on sexual preference since 2000 I've had a quick Google but am a bit time poor today. Any info greatly appreciated. The key piece of information is does the same company allow or deny private healthcare benefits to heterosexual couple who are not married. And I presume you mean to the non-employee half of the couple? If they don’t allow it for unmarried hetero couple then clearly they aren’t going to allow it for unmarried or un-civil partnered couple and that’s fine. This can’t be too unreasonable as how do you prove your “partner” is such and not just a random sick friend you are trying to help. But if they do allow the benefit for unmarried hetero couples then they would have to allow it for gay couples or be in breach of the equalities act 2010. Sorry, I should have made that clear. Benefit is provided for a partner living at the same address from the document - by partner we mean a person of the opposite sex to whom you are not legally married but whom you are living as husband and wife. So that's pretty clear that it's a breach of the equality act 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 20, 2018 7:59:31 GMT
The key piece of information is does the same company allow or deny private healthcare benefits to heterosexual couple who are not married. And I presume you mean to the non-employee half of the couple? If they don’t allow it for unmarried hetero couple then clearly they aren’t going to allow it for unmarried or un-civil partnered couple and that’s fine. This can’t be too unreasonable as how do you prove your “partner” is such and not just a random sick friend you are trying to help. But if they do allow the benefit for unmarried hetero couples then they would have to allow it for gay couples or be in breach of the equalities act 2010. Sorry, I should have made that clear. Benefit is provided for a partner living at the same address from the document - by partner we mean a person of the opposite sex to whom you are not legally married but whom you are living as husband and wife. So that's pretty clear that it's a breach of the equality act 2010. Yes I’d say so. First step would be to ask them why they think that isn’t unlawfully discriminatory. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 8:05:34 GMT
Sorry, I should have made that clear. Benefit is provided for a partner living at the same address from the document - by partner we mean a person of the opposite sex to whom you are not legally married but whom you are living as husband and wife. So that's pretty clear that it's a breach of the equality act 2010. Yes I’d say so. First step would be to ask them why they think that isn’t unlawfully discriminatory. It was brought to my attention by a friend, mainly on the back of the new GDPR legislation, I'll get back to him and see how he wants to play it Thanks for your help Nick, Much appreciated 👍🍻 |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jun 20, 2018 8:43:02 GMT
One does have to be a bit careful because the equalities act 2010 does legitimise some discrimination. I think I’ve mentioned this before but when I was due to retire I discovered that despite having been my Civil Partner since he could be, Jeff was not entitled to the same surviving spouse’s pension rights as he would have been if he was a women I’d married last week. He would get naff all. The equalities act only required companies to give benefits to same sex spouses for pension rights earned after the date of the act. Since our final salary pension scheme was closed to further accrual before then, he would get virtually nothing.
Fortunately our big boss in Houston was sympathetic and had the scheme’s rules changed after I raised it with him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 8:51:58 GMT
The bit from the act that seems relevant is this www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15CHAPTER 1EMPLOYMENT, ETC. Employees 39Employees and applicants (1)An employer (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)— (a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment; (b)as to the terms on which A offers B employment;(c)by not offering B employment. (2)An employer (A) must not discriminate against an employee of A's (B)— (a)as to B's terms of employment; (b)in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service;(c)by dismissing B; (d)by subjecting B to any other detriment. (3)An employer (A) must not victimise a person (B)— (a)in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment; (b)as to the terms on which A offers B employment;(c)by not offering B employment. (4)An employer (A) must not victimise an employee of A's (B)— (a)as to B's terms of employment;
(b)in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for any other benefit, facility or service;(c)by dismissing B; (d)by subjecting B to any other detriment.
I'll have a dig through it a bit more at lunch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 11:07:58 GMT
My friend tells me management has been alerted and a new form will be drafted - an oversight was blamed on the form being circulated in it's current format. Nice work Telemachus  |
|
