A job advert for a 1980s-themed bar has divided opinion after some people complained that the advert was 'sexist'.
Maverick's, in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire posted a job advert on its Facebook page over the weekend that read: "We are hiring! Female bar staff. No experience necessary. Team spirit. Bubbly personality."
But some members of the public have written under the post asking why they had asked specifically for applicants from one gender, which could potentially be illegal under the Equality Act 2010.
One woman asked: "Can I just ask why you're specifically asking for females. Why would it matter?"
The bar replied to her question, saying: "We are trying to balance the team as we have loads of boys already working, that's all."
One man commented on the job advert post: "You might need to check yourself. It's illegal to specify a gender."
Speaking to Yorkshire Live about the potential legal issues involved in advertising to applicants of only one sex, Emily Battock of law firm Doyle Clayton said: "Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as sex.
"The protection afforded by the Equality Act extends to candidates for a job role as well as employees."
Ms Battock said that in a scenario where a male candidate applied for a role specified for women and was rejected, the Employment Tribunal would consider what was the reason for the candidate’s rejection.
If the reason for rejection was the candidate’s sex, then this "would be direct sex discrimination" and the candidate could potentially bring a claim in the Employment Tribunal, she explained.
Ms Battock added: "Employers are not able to put forward an objective justification to direct sex discrimination.
"Employers can however rely on some exceptions to the Equality Act which permit conduct that would be otherwise unlawful if there is a genuine 'occupational requirement' for employees to be of a certain sex.
But she it would be "difficult to see how a bar may be able to prove an occupational requirement on which it could lawfully rely to justify what would otherwise be sex discrimination."
The Mirror has contacted Maverick's for a comment.
