This year's Equality Act sees a big change in employment law. Previously, employers have been able to wriggle out of so-called 'dual discrimination' claims, but not anymore.
A certain newsreader who tried to claim discrimination and failed will be listening carefully to see how this piece of legislation unfolds when it is tested in court. Her claim failed because she said she was being discrimated against on the grounds of age and sex. But, lo, there are other female newsreaders aren't there? And, there are other older newsreaders too! Nevermind that the female newsreaders are all under 40 and the older ones are all male.
Well, this new law changes all that. You can now claim on the grounds of two protected characteristics, so she could have argued that she was treated unfairly because she was an older woman. Same goes for Pakistani Muslims, black men, young women, or any other combination of two characteristics. The claimant would have to show that they wouldn't have been discriminated against but for the fact that they had two protected characteristics and the burden of proof would be on the employer to prove that they weren't in the wrong.
Showing posts with label protected characteristics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protected characteristics. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Monday, 5 July 2010
Discrimination claims
Discrimination doesn't have to be nasty or intentional. Claims on grounds of a 'protected characteristic' can arise from either direct or indirect discrimination.
There is no defence for treating someone less favourably if the reason is because of their membership of a protected group.
A discrimination claim would be valid even if the employer thinks they are acting in the interest of the individual. An example of this would be where an employer may be concerned about the safety of an employee in a particular role because of their ethnic background. The protected characteristic is STILL the main reason for treating the individual differently.
Indirect discrimination could be where protected groups are detrimentally affected by a practice or a policy, even though there was no direct intention to do so. For example, expecting shift work as a condition of employment may indirectly discriminate against women who are more likely to have caring commitments.
For more help or advice, email me at jen@thehrexperts.co.uk
There is no defence for treating someone less favourably if the reason is because of their membership of a protected group.
A discrimination claim would be valid even if the employer thinks they are acting in the interest of the individual. An example of this would be where an employer may be concerned about the safety of an employee in a particular role because of their ethnic background. The protected characteristic is STILL the main reason for treating the individual differently.
Indirect discrimination could be where protected groups are detrimentally affected by a practice or a policy, even though there was no direct intention to do so. For example, expecting shift work as a condition of employment may indirectly discriminate against women who are more likely to have caring commitments.
For more help or advice, email me at jen@thehrexperts.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)