Navy guilty of accommodation discrimination
AN officer has won his sex discrimination case over accommodation the Royal Navy offers its LGB personnel.
The man, who remains anonymous, claimed the senior service was breaking the Equality Act by cutting types of quarters offered to single men to one – while giving married couples the option of two to choose from.
He argued gay, bi and lesbian recruits were less likely to be married or have children and therefore were being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The Forces lifted the ban on gay men and women serving openly in 2000, while transgender people were allowed to in 2014.
The case revolves around the serviceman who was assigned to the Ministry of Defence premises at Abbey Wood near Bristol in July 2017. As there were no barracks on site available, he was eligible for the provision of accommodation elsewhere from the MoD.
In 2016, the Forces decided to change the accommodation policy to provide two types of housing depending on the relationship status of the serviceman or woman.
The first was Substitute Service Family Accommodation (SSFA) which permitted those in marriages or civil partnerships living with their spouse or civil partner a choice of two properties.
The second was Substitute Service Single Accommodation (SSSA), offering a single option of housing to those who are single or married or in a civil partnership but not living with their spouse.
The claimant said this constituted indirect discrimination as it placed members of the LGB community at a disadvantage as “a greater proportion of that community are not married or in civil partnerships, and those that are, are unlikely to live with their spouse or civil partner in service accommodation, and thus will be ineligible for the greater choice of substitute accommodation available through the SSFA.”
The serviceman was able to claim successfully that he and other LGB service members were at a disadvantage for not being offered choice of accommodation.
The serviceman said he had concerns about accommodation because he did not want his sexuality to be known by everyone, but a senior officer who knew about his orientation told him to ‘suffer’.
He said: “I raised concern about the accommodation situation. [The careers officer] said, ‘It shows you can suffer, so you have potential for leadership. That is the material the Board looks for.’
“I said, ‘I don’t think I should have to suffer to show my competence’.”
And when he asked to be given city centre accommodation in Bristol, instead of housing in a town nearby intended for families, he said he was forced to come out to other senior officers.
The Royal Navy attempted to claim this was not discriminatory, but due to cost reasons. But an Employment Judge ruled against the Forces saying “no business need has been demonstrated”.
Judge Martha Street said: “LGB service personnel were disproportionately affected by the loss of choice of substitute service accommodation imposed on those entitled to single substitute service accommodation and were disadvantaged by the lack of choice. That was the particular disadvantage.
“The claimant was put at that disadvantage. In the absence of justification, that is indirect discrimination.”
She added: “The removal of choice of substitute service accommodation was discriminatory. LGB personnel and the claimant were put at a particular disadvantage.”