Umakanthan53
Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Bodhisutra
Manager, Operations
Suhaskhambe
Executive Human Resource At Emcure Pharmaceuticals
Ngurjar
Management Consulting, Management Development,
Nashbramhall
Learning & Teaching Fellow (retired)
Jkct15
Deputy Manager - Hr
+3 Others

Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
Hi All, Was interested in knowing if one could have an explicit policy for 'no-lady-employees' at a company. Would that be legal? Reg,
What is the reason for " No lady employee "? I am curious to know. I don’t think this is legal in any part of the world. I will leave this to an expert to comment.
Dear NIKHIL,

In my view no question of legality is involved in such an exclusion.It is the prerogative of the employer of a private enterprise to hire employees of his choice; but upon employed, there should not be any gender-based bias.At the same time I would support the question raised by Shangeet.Now-a-days it is ubiquitous to find lady-employees right from retail vending out-lets to police and defence services.Even multi national corporations, banks, super health care enterprises have lady C.E.Os who are not only succesful in crossing the glass-ceiling but also reshaping the companies.When ladies are employed along with men, there may arise some problems but they are small in numbers and can be prevented or set-right effectively. In business promos, lady-models are used along with newly launched products some of which have no connection with ladies; in sports and game events ladies are employed as cheer-leaders. Needless to say that these are from a male-perception and a kind of subtle sexual exploitation of the fair-sex.Therefore, my personal view is such an explicit no lady-employees policy adopted by an employer, though may not be illegal, is indicative of either male-chauvinism or managerial fear psychosis and hence undesirable.

Dear In one word "NO" U can not regularize this in terms of written documents. the document and contents shall stand for NULL & VOID.
HI
Adding to others, No to lady employees will falls under the category of discrimination. If you refer the clause given by International labour organisation, it says "No person shall be subject to any discrimination in employment, including hiring, salary, benefits, advancement, discipline, termination or retirement, on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, political opinion, or social or ethnic origin". So if you put in a policy like you mentioned will result in unwanted complication. if you don hire an female is something different because of the nature of job but avoiding is not fair. Hope you will understand the sequence.

Thanks for the answers.
I have seen many organizations not employing women, despite being reasonably large ones. With the changing trends in the legislation, there have been many instances reported at the workplace where the employer is normally the one to bear the brunt of malafied litigation, especially those where the lady is intelligent enough to bend the law in her favour. Not all are incorrect, but I recall a famous politician stating that he would rather go without a female employee than have one and invite trouble! Managerial fear-psychosis or otherwise, the fact remains that such litigations do cost organizations a lot of time and money - both avoidable. That they come out of it ultimately, is possibly the lesser cause of worry.
Hence, the question...

I think this would be highly discriminatory and am sure there would be some law somewhere proscribing such a practice (a simple Google search too may help in finding out the exact law) - otherwise we would start having private organizations exclusive to certain communities, castes, religions, regions - discrimination can take several forms. Imagine how horrible it would be to have companies which recruit "no Marathis", "no UPites", "no Hindus", "no Muslims", "no Brahmins" and so on.
There could be certain hazardous industries which may have been legally barred for women but apart from that, excluding any group of people based on gender, caste, region, religion etc would be illegal.
Citing risk of harassment litigation as a reason to discriminate against women candidates is horrible and despicable, whoever does it. It would be better to conduct a few workshops telling everyone about what constitutes harassment and guiding them about what not to do.

Bodhisutra, please state the law...
Your views are similar to mine. But its a legal clarification...
In any case, please don't underestimate the cost of legal lawsuits... One thing is in knowing what is right... The other is seeking justice from a system. I hope you understand the difference.

@Ngurjar: Well, am indeed at a loss to understand how women in workplace = Increased cost of "legal" lawsuits.
Funny that we talk of excluding women from workforce and seeking justice for ourselves in the same vein.
Ohh, and about costs, I think the cost of excluding 50% of the population from the workforce would be much higher than that of a couple of awareness workshops which will be enough to prevent most of the normal hot blooded men from becoming harassers!
My 2 cents.

And, as for the law, pls check: http://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmi...harassment.pdf
The Equal Remuneration Act (ERA), 1976 expressly prohibits discrimination in employment against women. Quoting from the above, "Taking up the recruitment process, section 5 of the ERA prohibits the employer from devising a hiring process that puts women at a disadvantage on account of their gender"


This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™