Archive for the ‘Sex/Race Discrimination’ Category
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 Philip - Tuesday, June 17th, 2008
The EAT president has just dealt with a case involving allegations of sexual harassment brought against the individual harasser and their employer.
Points to note:
1. There is no requirement to bring a grievance against the individual, there was a requirement to bring a grievance against the employer, a school.
2. Where the grievance was brought against the school, the time limit extended by 3 months to make a total of 6 months from the last act complained of.
3. The inferred fact that the employee did not know that time would not extend for a claim against the individual was an acceptable reason to justify a late claim against an individual.
4 Tribunals should not salami slice sexual harassment claims into discrete acts and look at each individually but look at the harassment allegations as a “continuing state,” (as per Hendricks) thereby running time from the last act complained of
5. The employer could not run the reasonably practicable steps defence, thereby passing liability to the individual employee, as there was no evidence that there was a dignity at work policy or any employee had been trained in it.
This reads like a particularly nasty case of harassment involving a male person in power (an assistant head) abusing his position to harass sexually a subordinate (a teaching assistant) .The allegations included one of rape. It is particularly surprising that a school did not educate its employees about dignity at work.
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Emma - Thursday, April 17th, 2008
A warning to employers about an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which came in on 6 April 2008 to protect staff from sexual harassment from customers, suppliers and others that they encounter in the course of their work. This change has come about after a legal challenge brought last year by the Equal Opportunities Commission found that the government had not properly implemented the European Equal Treatment Directive in relation to protection against harassment.
The new law allows an employee to bring a claim against an employer who fails to take reasonable steps to protect them from harassment by third parties where the employer knows that harassment has occurred on at least two other occasions. Interestingly the harassment does not need to have been carried out by the same person on each occasion.
This law will have implications in many different sectors which are client-facing. Hotels, pubs and restaurants, for example, will now be potentially liable if their employees are harassed by clients. This is something that will be very difficult for employers to control. It is not possible to take disciplinary action against clients in the same way as employees. There could also be situations where employers need the business from the client concerned and might not wish to take issue with them about their treatment of an employees. Just something to think about…
For an article on the subject from Personnel Today see here
The Regulations bringing in the change can be read here
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Wednesday, April 16th, 2008
There is an interesting article in this week’s personnel today about the cost of equal pay claims in the public sector.
Those of you who have a nodding acquaintance with employment law will be aware that groups of public sector workers in a predominately female job function are claiming equal pay with groups of public sector workers in a predominately male job function. Cleaners claiming equal pay with bin men for example. The cost is estimated at a staggering £5 billion pounds (or a couple of pence on the income tax rate).
Once this particular seam has been well and truely mined then it is possible (indeed probable) that the law firms involved may turn their attention to the private sector. Only 46% of private sector employers have conducted an equal pay audit, some employers can expect expensive and time consuming equal pay claims.
Are you sure you can explain why your HR Managers(mainly female) earn less than your Accounts Managers (mainly male) ?
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, April 10th, 2008
The ECJ has ruled that a pension scheme’s refusal to grant a survivor’s pension to a civil partner of a gay employee amounts to direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The practical implications of this is that employment benefits awarded to spouses of employees should also be awarded to civil partners.
Those who are in a long term relationship who are not married or in a civil partnership are now the odd ones out. The lack of a piece of paper from a registrar means that they are disenfranchised from benefits-this does not seem equitable.
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Tuesday, April 8th, 2008
When I deliver equal opportunities training in house, most delegates readily see the need for legislation to outlaw sex discrimination in the workplace. They see that to discriminate against someone on grounds of gender is a mischief that needs snuffing out.
When the session moves on to discrimination on the grounds of gender re-assignment, the mood of the room changes to a mixture of puzzlement and bemusement with a liberal dose of sniggering coming from those attendeees who think that equal opportunities is for politically correct local authorities and not for people in business. Gender re-assignment is seen as so outre that some delegates cannot see the need for a law to deal with the issue.
The facts are, though, that you are far more likely to work alongside a person whose gender has been re-assigned than a lottery winner. Male to femal gender re-assignment runs at 1 per 40,000.00 in the UK, according to a 1973 study.
So for those not paying attention if your employer runs equal opportunities awareness sessions, this is the kind of messy Employment Tribunal you can end up with.
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Emma - Thursday, April 3rd, 2008
This case is an useful reminder of the need for employers to conduct risk assessments where they employ women of child bearing age. Paragraph 34 onwards of the decision outlines the process involved in undertaking a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee in an office environment - identifying the risks posed by lifting, bending over etc and then assessing steps to mitigate those risks. The case illustrates the practical steps that need to be taken to meet the legal requirements under health and safety law.
What is noteworthy is that under the snappily titled Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 there is a requirement on the employer to make a record of the risk assessment but no requirement to give that record to the pregnant employee. An oral notification is sufficient.
Readers are reminded that if an employer fails to undertake such a risk assessment that failure could constitute sex discrimination and be actionable in the employment tribunal
Posted in Health and Safety, Maternity, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Philip - Thursday, March 20th, 2008
This case is for you if you are interested in the intricacies of how the Sex Discrimination Act works and its interplay with the Equal Pay Act.
Involving the long running (and local authority budget sapping) equal pay cases and the indefatigable Stefan Cross , the point in question was whether a section 77 claim under the Sex Discrimination Act could run in parallel with an Equal Pay claim in Tribunal.
For historians of the discrimination legislation, the judgement gives a concise potted history of the relevant law and considers the impact of the 1986 Sex Discrimination Act.
In essence section 77 allows a party to a contract to have it declared void if one of its terms is discriminatory. The contract in question was a collective agreement and the Trade Unions were a party to the litigation.
The EAT allowed the Tribunal to run the Sex Discrimination claim to run in parallel with the Equal Pay claim.
Posted in Sex/Race Discrimination, Uncategorized | 1 comment »
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:
