Archive for the ‘Religion or Belief Discrimination’ Category
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:
By Sarah - Friday, August 17th, 2007
This Appeal makes for some interesting reading particularly if you are considering bringing a case to Tribunal. It emphasises the need for the Claimant to raise all or any grievances promptly before issuing a claim in relation to their case rather than halfway through the hearing process. The law is nothing new but perhaps a reminder of the employee’s obligations. A grievance must be raised promptly, cover all the issues and be issued before the Claim form is.
As the Employment Appeal Tribunal outlined, the ET1 is where the opportunity should be taken to refer, in as much detail, to any actual allegations you wish to bring to the Tribunal. Simply ticking the box which best describes your situation, which in this case was ‘discrimination’ is not enough as the employer needs more detail in order to respond. If you have not raised a grievance first then allegations of discrmination should not be accepted.
Posted in Age Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination, Statutory Procedures | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Monday, July 2nd, 2007
The EAT in ODOEMELAM v THE WHITTINGTON HOSPITAL NHS TRUST have confirmed that in respect of discrimination claims made against another employee (the perpetrator of discrimination), as distinct from claims against an employer, the employee making the claim does not need to raise a grievance against the perpetrator in order to make a claim against the perpetrator.
Contrast this with the position where the claim is made against the employer because the employer can be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. In this situation, it would be necessary for the employee to raise a grievance about the same conduct of the same employees. It is therefore essential to identify the correct ”target” for a claim in order to avoid falling foul of the procedural vagaries of the Employment Act 2002.
Posted in Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination, Statutory Procedures | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Thursday, June 21st, 2007
Readers may recall a case that hit the headlines in the news earlier this year concerning a teacher who was told she could not wear the hijab in school classrooms while teaching children as it inhibited non verbal communication. The case was decided at the EAT and the decision is on their website AZMI v KIRKLEES METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL. In short, the EAT ruled that although banning garments that cover the face was indirect discrimination, the reason for the policy (not inhibiting non verbal communication) was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The discrimination was therefore lawful due to the legitimate aim defence. It is also worth noting that the employer helped themselves by investigating in some detail whether the wearing of the hijab was a real issue and by allowing her to wear it when she was not working with children.
Aziz did however receive an award of £1,100.00 (£1000.00 increased by 10% because of the employer’s failure to deal with her grievance) because the Tribunal upheld her complaint about victimisation. This is a reminder that employees do not have to have to win their main tribunal claim to claim victimisation. Making a claim that they believe to be valid is sufficient even if the Tribunal on the day decides against the employee.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination, Statutory Procedures | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Wednesday, June 20th, 2007
What does Dignity at Work actually mean? Well it can mean a number of different things to different people. A couple of examples are treating others how you would like to be treated and treating others with respect. Most cases of a violation of someone’s dignity involve some form of bullying and harassment, which is often related to sex/race/age/religious belief or sexual orientation. By far the biggest cause we see in our day to day work is sex discrimination although age discrimination is now starting to creep into our work since the inception of the Age Discrimination laws last October 2006.
For those of you who missed our Podcast on the new laws this is still available on under Podcasts on our site. As a firm we value Dignity at Work and train our clients and their teams on Dignity at Work. Many companies have a Dignity at Work or Equal Opportunities policy but how many actually live and breathe Dignity at Work. To me the answer is not many.
When I am carrying out employment law training to clients and their teams the most controversal subject is always discrimination. Even where companies have a policy, many employees have no comprehension as to the fact that their “pet names” for people or their “jokes” could cause offence. It comes as even more of a shock to them when I tell them that not only can the Company be vicariously liable for their actions as employees, but they could also be personally liable for their actions. Another cause of shock is that it is the perception of the victim not the intentions of the perpetrator that are revelant.
The hope is that they come away from the training with a better understanding of employment law but also about the effects their actions can have on others. These clients understand that having a policy is not enough, their staff need training around the policy subject in order to promote a culture of “Dignity at Work”. Some clients opt for our group training which is bespoke to them and others (in increasing numbers) are turning to our e-learning package Dignity at Work. For more information on your options visit our training and e-learning sections to the right of the Blog.
The importance of the subject is shown by the formation of the Dignity at Work Partnership between the DTI and Amicus to try to tackle the problem of bullying and harassment. Organisations can sign up to the policy and follow in the footsteps of BT and Royal Mail who have already signed up. More information can be found here
Posted in Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Liam - Tuesday, June 12th, 2007
The department for Communities and Local Government, DES, DTI, DWP and the Ministry of Justice have compiled a joint consultation document to invite comments regarding a complete overhaul of the existing equal opportunities/anti discrimination legislation. The consultation paper can be found here and includes instructions as to how to have your say!
The consultation paper was issued today and responses must be submitted by 4 September 2007.
On the subject of promoting equal opportunities, PJH Law offer an e-learning product designed to educate employees as to their responsibilities with regard to equal opportunities with a view to minimising risk to employers and promoting a pleasant and productive working environment for all workers. A free trial of Dignity at Work is now available. Contact Liam - liam@pjhlaw.co.uk or 0870 350 5805 for further details.
Posted in Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Family Friendly, Maternity, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, January 4th, 2007
BMI is reportedly being taken to an Employment Tribunal by one of its stewardesses because the airline would not permit her to carry her Bible on flights to Saudi Arabia. As many of our clients have employees abroad, this is a timely reminder of the need to consider the customs and cultures of foreign countries, and the impact that these could have on employees working outside the UK.
Foreign Office safety guidance states that in Saudi Arabia “The public practice of any form of religion other than Islam, or proselytising, is not permitted. The importation and use of narcotics, alcohol, pork products and religious books (apart from the Qu’ran) and artefacts are forbidden.��? It is on this basis that BMI have banned the bible on flights to Saudi Arabia.
We will report the outcome of this case when (and if) it goes to hearing.
Posted in Religion or Belief Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
