Über Arne habe ich diesen Artikel zu einer gewonnenen Klage eines Mannes wegen Diskriminierung gefunden:
The only male member of an NHS health visitor team has won a sex discrimination case after his female boss told him to ‚man up‘ in front of a room full of women.
Senior manager Lisa Sanchez deliberately excluded Pete Marsh when saying ‚goodbye ladies‘ as she was leaving a meeting because of a ‚growing animus‘ towards him, an employment tribunal ruled.
Das ist auch ein gutes Beispiel, dass nicht ein Geschlecht Macht hat (wie es ja die intersektionalen Theorien gerne annehmen) sondern Leute in hohen Positionen Macht haben über Leute, die ihnen untergeordnet sind.
Mr Marsh – who has worked in the health service for more than 20 years – said he had grown tired of being the ‚butt of jokes‘ about being the only man in the team.
The tribunal ruled that this culture had been tolerated by bosses including head of service Ms Sanchez, who was found to have joined in with the remarks.
Now, after his internal complaints of bullying were rejected, Mr Marsh has successfully sued the NHS for sex discrimination and is in line for compensation.
(…)
In May 2016 he became an accredited Unite trade union workplace representative.
Two years later he was involved in an altercation with a female nursery nurse on the team who had ignored his request to help her.
This resulted in her making a complaint about him which led to mediation between the pair.
The Manchester tribunal heard that this mediation was carried out by Ms Sanchez and Mr Marsh felt she had sided with the nursery worker against him and emailed her afterwards to express his dissatisfaction.
This ‚irritated‘, Ms Sanchez, the tribunal heard.
Gut, da fehlen jetzt einige Details, so dass man nicht weiß, wer hier die Fehler gemacht hat oder wer sich wie verhalten hat. Hat sie ihm nicht geholfen weil sie ihn nicht mochte, weil er ein Mann war oder weil sie schlicht selbst genug zu tun hatte? Vielleicht gab es nachvollziehbare Gründe dafür, dass sie das nicht wollte und deswegen stellte man sich auf ihre Seite. Vielleicht aber eben auch nicht.
At a staff meeting soon afterwards to discuss a plan for increasing the workload of clinics with no increase in time, the hearing was told Ms Sanchez demanded in an ‚aggressive and confrontational‘ style which staff were a member of ‚Pete’s Union‘.
‚The tribunal considered Ms Sanchez‘ approach was intentionally divisive and intimidatory,‘ the panel said. ‚The implication was that staff were to be seen as either in Pete’s Union or not, and became about taking sides.‘
Mr Marsh claimed that at a meeting in July 2018 Ms Sanchez said hello to every female staff member by name on entering and on leaving said: ‚Goodbye ladies‘, ignoring him entirely.
Vielleicht mochten sie ihn auch lediglich nicht als Gewerkschaftssprecher und da er der einzige Mann war war es leicht dort die Grenze zu ziehen.
In February 2019, the tribunal heard, a team meeting where concerns about poor staff morale were raised descended into a heated row involving Ms Sanchez and Mr Marsh.
Mr Marsh was the only man in the room with ten female colleagues, the panel heard.
‚The atmosphere in the meeting became tense,‘ the hearing was told. ‚There was a five-minute break after which the discussion got out of hand, with most team members involved.
‚[Mr Marsh] complained he was being blanked. Ms Sanchez declared that the behaviour of the team was „childish“ and needed to stop and that the team needed to adopt professional behaviour and to respect Trust values.
‚Ms Sanchez also said that people could only speak when spoken to. [Mr Marsh] objected to this and went to leave the meeting, saying Ms Sanchez needed to sort herself out.
‚In reply, Ms Sanchez told [him], „you need to man up“.
Das wäre ja dann in der Tat ein klassisches vorhalten der Geschlechterrolle – er soll eben ein echter Mann sein.
Wäre interessant, ob es auch als allgemeine Redewendung gegenüber Frauen verwendet wird oder nur Männern gegenüber.
‚The tribunal considered that her remark was said in heat of the moment and was unprofessional. Ms Sanchez lost her temper and should have closed the meeting rather than attack [Mr Marsh] verbally as she did.‘
The tribunal was told Mr Marsh complained about how he had been spoken to at the meeting by Ms Sanchez.
‚[He] said he felt bullied by Ms Sanchez. He also said that, as a lone male in the workplace, he felt that he took a lot of abuse that he would like to challenge but did not, but that he drew the line at being told that he could only speak when spoken to,‘ it said.
Das wäre ja auch ein klassisches Argument in der Geschlechterdebatte „Ich war alleine unter Männern/Frauen und deswegen fühlte ich mich besonders unwohl und konnte mich nicht wehren“.
The tribunal heard that while Ms Sanchez admitted regretting the remark she had never apologised for it.
Mr Marsh went off work with stress and in May submitted a ‚Dignity at Work‘ complaint about bullying and harassment by several staff including Ms Sanchez.
The tribunal heard the Trust then launched an ‚entirely ineffective‘ investigation into the health visitor team which eventually dismissed Mr Marsh’s concerns and concluded the whole team needed to develop ‚emotional resilience‘.
In November 2019 Mr Marsh moved to a different health visitor team and in April 2020 launched tribunal proceedings against his employers, claiming sex discrimination, trade union detriment and disability discrimination.
man könnte sich durchaus vorstellen, dass es gerade auch gedeckt worden ist, weil er ein Mann ist. Bei einer Frau die immer wieder in einer Gruppe von Männern Witze über sich ergehen lassen müsste hätte man vielleicht mehr Angst gehabt, dass sie klagt und man dann schlecht darsteht.
Upholding a number of his sex claims, the panel – chaired by Employment Judge Marion Batten – ruled that Mr Marsh had been discriminated against.
‚The tribunal accepted [his] evidence that he had often been the butt of jokes or remarks about being the only man in the team or about his sex.
‚He gave evidence that such comments were at time innocuous but he had grown tired of them and was on occasion irritated by the fact that his sex was highlighted unnecessarily.
‚The tribunal found that this culture, and approach to [Mr Marsh] was tolerated by his immediate management who took no steps to deter [his] colleagues and Ms Sanchez herself has been shown to have participated in such commentary.‘
The ‚man up‘ remark was not only unprofessional it was ‚less favourable treatment‘ due to Mr Marsh’s sex, the panel found.
Of the ‚Goodbye Ladies‘ salutation, the tribunal said: ‚At best this might be a thoughtless comment but for a senior and experienced manager in the NHS, the tribunal would expect better.
‚In the context of Ms Sanchez’s developing animus towards [Mr Marsh], the tribunal found she was well aware of his presence at the time of her comment.
‚In those circumstances, the tribunal considered on a balance of probabilities that Ms Sanchez had said „Ladies“ and that it was deliberate.
‚In reaching this conclusion, the tribunal took into account that the incident came after the mediation, which Ms Sanchez believed had gone well. However, [Mr Marsh] did not agree.
‚He remained unhappy and had complained, which then irritated Ms Sanchez. She acted to [Mr Marsh’s detriment] and treated him less favourably because of his gender, excluding him by her remark upon leaving.‘
Mr Marsh was also discriminated against by female colleagues who made false complaints against him.
Ich habe keine Ahnung, wie das Schadensersatzrecht in solchen Fällen in der UK ausgestaltet ist. Wahrscheinlich nicht so radikal wie in den USA.
Wäre interessant, wenn man nach diesem Fall in dem Krankenhaus eine Art „Senistivitätstraining“ planen würde in dem weibliche Angestellte lernen Männer nicht diskriminierend zu behandeln. Würde vermutlich nicht in die Kurse der wokeren Trainer passen.
In addition, Ms Sanchez was found to have treated him unfairly in relation to his role with Unite by asking the ‚Pete’s Union‘ question, the tribunal found.
His disability claim was dismissed, however. Mr Marsh’s compensation will be decided at a later hearing.
Das nur zur Vollständigkeit
Alles Evolution 