Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Scottish court overturns gay discrimination ruling

by Personnel Today 1 Jul 2001
by Personnel Today 1 Jul 2001

"Sex" in the Sex Discrimination Act concerns gender, not sexual
orientation, according to the Court of Session in Scotland, writes David
Morgan.

The latest judgement in the controversial case of Ministry of Defence v
MacDonald (see employers’ Law, May 2001) was made after the Ministry of
Defence` appealed against an earlier decision of the EAT sitting in Scotland
that had held that "sex" in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was
ambiguous enough to encompass discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation.

MacDonald had claimed direct sex discrimination against the MoD on the basis
of his compulsory resignation from the RAF following his admission that he was
a homosexual. But in a two to one majority, the court held that the old
orthodoxy should be restored, namely that "sex" in the Act means
gender. The majority held that the Act does not prohibit discrimination on the
grounds of homosexuality and overturned the EAT decision.

The majority of the court looked back to the spirit of the Act at its
inception in 1975 and, in doing so, unanimously held that the term
"sex" unambiguously meant gender. What their Lordships could not
agree on was an appropriate "like for like" comparator.

The majority held that a homosexual man ought to be compared to a lesbian,
which meant that because the former policy of the MoD excluding homosexuals
from the Armed Forces was applied equally to male and female homosexuals, there
could be no sex discrimination. In dissent, however, Lord Prosser adopted a
commonsense factual analysis. For him, the appropriate comparator for a
homosexual is a heterosexual of the opposite gender. In other words, had
MacDonald been a woman he would not have been expelled from the armed forces
for preferring a male sexual partner.

As the Scottish President of the EAT also sits in the Court of Session, we
are now left with an unsatisfactory equal split of opinion among four eminent
Scottish judges.

However, the English Court of Appeal’s judgement in Pearce v Mayfield
Secondary School is anticipated and may clarify this vexed question. Pearce was
unsuccessful in her claim that she had been subjected to direct sex
discrimination in circumstances in which she had been subjected to verbal
abuse, including gender-specific words such as "lesbian" and
"dyke". The EAT dismissed her appeal since there was no evidence to
suggest that a male homosexual would have been treated any differently.

In the longer term, the issue should become less relevant as the European
Commission has implemented the Equal Treatment Framework directive 2002 which,
among other things, introduces a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual
orientation. The UK must implement domestic legislation no later than 2
September 2003.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In the meantime, though, employers would remain well advised to treat
homosexual discrimination with the same contempt as discrimination on the
grounds of gender.

David Morgan is a solicitor at McGrigor Donald in Glasgow

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Independent Insurance to axe 1,000 jobs
next post
Massive HR system overhaul for NHS

You may also like

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

Occupational health on the coronavirus frontline – ‘I...

21 Aug 2020

Occupational Health & Wellbeing research round-up: August 2020

7 Aug 2020

Acas: Redundancy related enquiries surge 160%

5 Aug 2020

Coronavirus: lockdown ‘phase two’ may bring added headaches...

17 Jul 2020

Unemployment to top 4 million as workers come...

15 Jul 2020

Over 1,000 UK redundancies expected at G4S Cash...

14 Jul 2020

  • Preparing for a new era of workforce planning (webinar) WEBINAR | Employers now face...Read more
  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+