E-mail this to a friend
Print this
The Apprentice Analysed
The Lawyer Online
08 May 2008
Sir Alan excelled himself this week with a discrimination hat trick!
Let's start with the "kosher chicken incident". Both teams seemed to deal with this issue with utter hilarity and contempt, but this really got Jenny and Michael into trouble with the big man (that being Sir Alan) who questioned their intelligence, integrity and Michael's being a "good Jewish boy". Sir Alan had a clear policy that the candidates should know what kosher means. So we wonder, if an employer has such a policy :
- does this amount to direct or indirect discrimination for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976 or EE (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003?
- is the position affected if a lesser degree of knowledge is required a) of a Jewish applicant or b) of a candidate who has previously claimed to be Jewish?
Sir Alan questioned Michael's religion and his misrepresentation on his CV that he was a "good Jewish boy". In order to get to the bottom of this , Sir Alan suggested Michael pull down his trousers. Perhaps this could be a new method of monitoring diversity in the workplace? We do hope not! But this could amount to harassment or direct discrimination due to Michael's religion, as he was treated differently for (not) being Jewish .
Sir Alan didn't leave it there with Jenny and Michael, commenting about their respective ages which of course raises issues with age discrimination. Both were accused of being devious. Yet, Jenny was fired, so could this amount to an age related unfair dismissal? And to fire her on her birthday - oh Sir Alan, have some mercy!
With mass firings in the boardroom, it reminds us of what's happening in the City... were the collective redundancy provisions engaged and does the session in the boardroom meet the statutory consultation obligations? Sir Alan is clearly not phased by this, muttering that he will fire all five of them if he wants to!