Open for business (unless you’re a man)

Civitas, 6 December 2010

The Equality Act 2010 came into force on 1^st October; however, not all provisions have been implemented. One provision which is being considered by the Government is the prohibition on ‘age discrimination in services and public functions’. This would extend the law prohibiting discrimination on characteristics other than age (sex, religion, race etc). I imagine that most people would accept this, I’m sure that most people agree that businesses should not discriminate in the provision of their services because of a person’s age, sex, religion etc. However, many pub landlords seem to disagree…

It is a constant gripe amongst young people, and young men in particular, that they have been refused entry to an establishment, because of their sex, or their age ( ’21 year-olds and over’ policies are common), two things the Government labels as ‘protected characteristics’. Usually the offending establishment is a nightclub, but increasingly it is the same for pubs. The new Equality Act defines 9 ‘protected characteristics’ including sex, age, race etc, which by law people are protected from discrimination. I myself was discriminated against this weekend because of the ‘protected characteristic’ of my sex, when I was refused entry to my local pub because I was a man. I was told that ‘there were too many men inside’ and that ‘the manager doesn’t like it when there aren’t enough women inside’. I’m sure this experience will be familiar to many men who have been refused entry to a nightclub or pub because of their sex. Some justify this by arguing that pubs, as private premises, can refuse entry to whomever they please. However, the Government seems to disagree. On the subject of discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act (1975), regarding the provision of services, the Equality and Human Rights Commission gives this example:

‘Ladies’ nights’ where only women receive free drinks, “two-for-one”  offers or free admission are almost certainly direct sex discrimination against men. The same would be true of any other offer which was restricted to people with a particular protected characteristic. ‘

It seems as though restricting the offer of entry to those with the protected characteristic of being female would be in violation of the law; however, it is routinely done. A further example makes it even clearer that refusing service is illegal:

‘A pub cannot refuse to serve a customer because they are a transsexual person or with a transsexual person.’

I am not sure if pubs and clubs get around this by invoking some special dispensation, but I would contend that according to the information given by the Government on discrimination law in this country, their actions are clearly illegal.

I imagine that pubs and clubs get away with such practices because they are widely accepted (many women and men may prefer pubs/clubs with a more equal sexual distribution) and because many of those angered and negatively affected do not formally complain. However, I do wonder what the case would be if the discrimination was based on religion or race, or indeed if women were refused entry to ‘laddish’ establishments. In such a situation I imagine that the uproar would force discriminatory establishments to change their policy.  Until the Government decides to do something about this alarmingly regular, practice I may simply have to find another local…