Curious - weird job requirement & possible discrimination

66Mustang

I came across a job recently which is for a kind of advisor / concierge type person for a relatively large and well known company that specialises in fine food and drink, especially high end alcoholic drinks - chiefly single malt whisky

One of the requirements for the job is "applicants will be required to constantly expand their palate and maintain up-to-date knowledge of the industry, you will need to have a willingness to sample small amounts of alcoholic drinks up to 60% ABV as part of your job"

I was just wondering if this is allowed? If someone didn't consume alcohol for religious reasons, but fitted all the other job specs, would they have a legal basis for making a discrimination allegation?

It's not something that will affect me but I'm just interested and thought I'd see if anyone knew the answer

MW123

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/119929/curious-weird-job-requirement-possible-discrimination

If someone who abstains from alcohol for religious reasons applies for the job and is rejected based on this requirement, they could potentially claim religious discrimination. The success of their claim would largely depend on whether the employer had considered less discriminatory alternatives or adjustments and found them unfeasible. Moreover, the employer must convincingly argue that tasting alcohol is indeed a genuine occupational requirement and that no reasonable adjustments could be made.

66Mustang

Thanks both!

That's interesting to know

MW123

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/887613#Comment_887613

While "reasonable adjustments" is the specific term used in disability discrimination, the principle of making accommodations to ensure fairness applies to all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. While this includes religious beliefs, it's important to recognise that the specific legal requirements and potential for successful claims can vary depending on the context.

For example, in a role that fundamentally requires tasting in high end alcoholic drinks it's highly likely that a claim of religious discrimination would be difficult to establish, as the requirement is central to the job's purpose.

However, the principle of fairness still applies, and employers should consider alternative roles or accommodations where possible.

66Mustang

Thanks

I'm in no way an expert but I would have tended to agree that adjustments can be for other reasons like religion?

As an example, I believe that Sikh men are permitted to not wear the otherwise compulsory hard hat on building sites, on religious grounds because of their turban

egister

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/887690#Comment_887690

Should they also not wear a spacesuit helmet when working in space?

Jimm_Alumni

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/887690#Comment_887690

There are other adjustments of course, but it still falls under reasonableness.

A concierge for a company that specialises in selling alcohol will need to know what they are selling. It is seen as an integral part of the job.

This discussion does remind me of a job posting a friend showed me a few months ago though. It was an opening for a music teacher, one of the requirements was "Experience and understanding of neurodiversity as many of the students are neurodiverse". At the bottom was a final 'suggested requirement' of "candidate should not be neurodiverse".

I believe the job ad was taken down rather swiftly.

66Mustang

@Jimm_Scope

I hope you or no one thought I was silly for asking this question. I'm actually on the side of common sense, in fact the precise reason I was asking was that I'm quite well aware that often people who make accusations of discrimination do not use common sense, and I wanted to know whether one of the "professionally offended" types would have a leg to stand on if they wanted to make a fuss. I'm glad that's not the case!!

@egister

I'd be interested in understanding how choosing to not wear a hard hat and accepting a small possibility of injury, is in any way similar to not wearing a space helmet in space which comes with a pretty much 100% chance of suffocation / death?

Jimm_Alumni

I don't think it's a silly question at all! It's thought provoking, absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Most employment tribunals are actually publicised, you can read them if you like! For the most part they are very 'common sense'.

egister

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/889069#Comment_889069

You haven't calculated the probabilities. Unlike those who require workers to wear a hard hat.

Safety FIRST!