Archive for the ‘Religion or Belief Discrimination’ Category
By Sarah - Friday, July 11th, 2008
You may have heard in the news a case involving a marriage registrar who had worked at Islington Council for 16 years. She refused to carry out same sex marriage ceremonies stating that it was against her Christian beliefs. She brought a claim for discrimination on the grounds that she had suffered harassment and missed promotion opportunities because of her refusal.
As it is an Employment Tribunal decision rather than an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, the facts are sketchy as they have not been officially reported. I understand however, that she was suspended for the refusal. The Tribunal ruled in her favour and accepted her argument that this amounted to discrimination. You can find out more here.
What is particularly interesting about this case is that it comes on the back of a series of other cases which have made the news about discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. You can read some previous examples here. This case succeeded where others have failed. It may be because the refusal was deeply seated in the religion rather than other cases such as the right to wear a cross to work at BA which arguably is not so deeply seated.
Another interesting point is that although the Claimant was arguably discriminating against members of the public on the grounds of their sexual oritentation this was okay because she had a religious reason for doing so. Hmm this could be a very interesting debate. Let us have your thoughts.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Friday, June 27th, 2008
Equality minister Harriet Harman has set out her plans for the equality bill. You can watch her speech here.
In summary, the plans are designed to stamp out the pay divide and will be brought about in three ways:
1. In the use of the proposed Equality Bill.
2. By using secondary legislation.
3. By action in by the newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission.
It would take another 80 years, Harman says, to equalise pay so they are going to make it compulsory for companies to report on equality issues by gender pay for their employees to see in the same way that hospitals and schools publish league tables on waiting lists and exam results.
The plan is to bring equality in five ways. Firstly be using the public procurement process. Presumably this will mean it will be harder for companies to secure public sector contracts unless they are seen to be good role models.
Secondly, they will outlaw clauses in the employment contracts which prohibit employees from talking to one another about their pay. Some employers use these clauses not to allow a gender divide but to stop those in similar positions finding out each others salary to get into a bidding war.
The third measure is to give the Employment Tribunal extended powers to make recommendations not just in relation to the successful complainant but to all affected employees. Whether this will extend their powers in the same way as protective awards remains to be seen.
Next the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is to use its statutory powers of investigation. Harman says that they will start with the financial sector in a bid to outlaw sexism in the city. This is something this firm has seen first hand for one of its employees against a large UK plc (and won I hasten to add!)
The final measure relates to the reporting provisions I have set out above. It therefore appears that we have some important changes to employment legislation on the horizon so watch this space for further updates. We will also be launching our Employment law training programme in early July which will enable you to keep up to date.
Posted in Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Equal Pay, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Friday, April 18th, 2008
Not only will racial harassment mean problems in the employment arena but you could find yourself in a whole lot more trouble. Yesterday, three employees who subjected a muslim co-worker to a campaign of racial harassment over a ten month period were jailed for three years each.
This may sound extreme but not when you consider the campaign that the co-workers subjected him to. The extreme conduct included trying to force feeding him bacon (banned by the muslim religion), setting fire to his trousers and placing a rucksack, with wires trailing out, on top of his work locker. They also subjected him to racist comments.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Wednesday, March 19th, 2008
A survey by an employment service provider (not us) has found that 88% of the 2,266 employers surveyed had at some stage given the job to the most attractive candidate! A similar percentage stated that appearance could affect their decision to offer the job. Whilst ensuring that those who are being interviewed for a office position have turned up dressed appropriately, this approach could land employers in hot water.
This attitude is quite suprising given the anti-discrimination legilsation in place. A person’s looks could be based on their race or gender which would of course be discriminatory. Giving a young female the job for her “sex appeal” over a male applicant could amount to sex discrimination and not choosing the older candidate could be discriminatory on the grounds of age.
When I was applying for training contracts a lot of the City firms asked for a passport photo with the application form. What is that about, if this is not selecting a prospective candidate on looks? Does this still go on?
Posted in Age Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Friday, March 14th, 2008
A husband and wife who both work for Strathclyde police are taking their employer to Tribunal alleging that they have been subjected to a detriment on grounds of religion.
The detriment in question was having their personnel record changed from married to married/civil partnership.The change followed the introduction of civil partnerships.
This change of categorisation was offensive to their Catholicism (or so they say) as it equated marital status between man and woman to civil partnership between two people of the same sex. The couple say that there is no comparison.Lumping their marital status in the same category as a civil partnership caused injury to feeling.
We watch this case with interest as the employer’s defence is that if they separate out the categories the employer would (in effect) be disclosing an employee’s particular sexual orientation, which some employees may want keeping confidential.
Another case demonstrating that many new workplace rights may involve the employer managing a balancing exercise between competing employee rights - in this case the right not to be subjected to a detriment on grounds of sexual orientation ( the need to keep it confidential) and the right not to be subject to a detriment on grounds of religious belief .
The case does beg one question: why the employer (other than its pension scheme) needs to know (and retain) the information on marital status /civil partnership in the first place.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Thursday, November 29th, 2007
Under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, employers can currently be fined up to £5,000.00 for employing an employee who does not have the right to work in this country. It is currently a defence that you checked the identity of the employee to establish whether they have the right to work in this country and kept a copy of a prescribed form of proof of I.D. on file.
Under new proposals, the fine could increase to £10,000.00 for negligently employing someone who does not have the right to work in this country (i.e. for assuming someone has the right to work in this country without actually knowing that in fact they do not). Employers could also face an unlimited fine or imprisonment for knowingly employing someone who does not have the right to work in this country.
When recruiting employees and seeking to comply with the rules on not employing illegal workers, employers must take particular care not to discriminate on the grounds of race/national origin/religion or belief. For example, employers should check the identity of all employees not just those that “don’t look English”.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination, Uncategorized | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Tuesday, November 13th, 2007
How much does the personal style of your hair dresser or barber affect your decision to use their services?
Back in the days when my hair style meant more to me than it does today, I would say that the personal style of a hair dresser or barber was important when exercising my choice as a potential customer. I would not have chosen to have my hair cut by someone sporting a Bobby Charlton comb over or a Michael Bolton mullet for example. Call me vain, if you will!
Without wishing to sound sexist, it is probably a more important consideration for women than men. Based on personal experience, women spend more time and money on their hair than men. No male employee at PJH Law has taken an afternoon off to have their cut although a female employee has. (Are you reading this Rona?)
Furthermore female hairdressers are more likely to have funky hairdoes than their male barber counterparts, who quite often, ironically, are as tonsorially challenged as Right Said Fred
That’s a very long introduction to the case reported here about a claim of Religious Discrimination brought by a Muslim Hairdresser who keeps her hair hidden behind a veil.
As a part of the service sector, a hairdresser is selling the service of a hair cut. Why would you buy a hair cut from someone who places no value on having their hair on open display?No doubt some of the questions the Central London Tribunal has to grapple with in January. It is indeed an irony that issues of personal appearance are taking up more and more of the Tribunals’ time, when the issues usually relate not to dressing in a fashionable way in the style of a celebrity but in dressing to observe one’s particular religion.We’ll keep you posted.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Monday, October 22nd, 2007
From 1 October 2007, the CRE, DRC and EOC ceased to exist as separate organisations. They now all form part of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. The new website for the CEHR is now up and running. The website has a number of clever little features - it talks to you, lets you change the background colour and text colour and the font size to make the site easier to read for those suffering from a range of conditions (not just the visually impaired) and if you don’t suffer from a disability, but happen to be Welsh, it will change all the text to Cymraeg (Welsh) for you! Have a look at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/.
Posted in Disability Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | 2 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Monday, October 15th, 2007
Like Bob Marley when writing the above lirick, Mr Harris didn’t care what the world, or at least his employer, NKL Automotive Ltd, said about his dreadlocks - in particular they did not represent the company well.
Harris was a Rastafarian who claimed he had been discriminated against because of his hair (part of the Rastafarian belief involves wearing long hair/dreadlocks). It has long been clear that Rastafarians are not a racial group and therefore can not claim Race Discrimination under the Race Relations Act. However, the EAT has now held that they can claim under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.
Unfortunately for Mr Harris, whose hair was described as matted, the EAT held that a policy of having tidy hair was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of appearing smart and presentable to clients and he therefore lost his claim of indirect discrimination.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Monday, September 17th, 2007
The Daily Mail report that a Hindu worker has been sacked for wearing a nose stud.This does seem a bit over the top, particularly as it would appear that the employee had worn the nose stud for a year without a problem.
It would seem that this Company had a rule stating that with the exception of sleeper stud ear rings, no “flesh piercing” jewellery was permitted.
Discreet (and indiscreet) piercings and tattooes have now become part and parcel of youth culture, with people in the public eye like David Beckham and Zara Phillips being quite open in their tattooed and pierced flesh. A tongue stud was no reason to take Zara Phillips off the public payroll, although for the more republican of our readers it may have been an useful stick to beat her with.
In this particular case there was a religious reason for the piercing. Is it time for Companies to take a broader minded approach to appearance codes? Have managers not got more to do than police whether or not their employees are abiding by the Company’s appearance policies?Does a strict dress code add value or is it HR make work?Your thoughts.
Posted in Miscellaneous, Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
