In this critique, I having explored the legislation and policies surrounding how the public and private bodies in England and Wales can dispense their equality obligations and systematically reduce or eradicate individual discrimination against them, flowing from the public sector equality duty and discrimination legislation, as it relates specifically to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, Disability Discrimination Act 1975 and The Equality Act 2010 and conclude, while there are significant laws, there remains future chances needed and the employer should take not and be attentive;
Rich Berry, of the overview of the UK anti-discrimination law, suggest; “ The Current Legislations is Complex and Inconsistent The multiplication of statutes has led to significant inconsistency and inequality in the landscape of anti-discrimination law with the existing Acts and new Regulations providing different standards of protection according to the ground covered. This leads to a hierarchy of equalities with the RRA 1996 providing the highest level of protection. – The Law is Inadequate to Challenge Multiple Discrimination, the current patchwork of anti-discrimination statutes is inadequate to address and challenge discrimination on multiple grounds. The complexity of HIV- and AIDS-related discrimination is a key argument for the adoption of a piece of legislation, which would allow tackling multiple discrimination which in the case of HIV can involve 4 factors: HIV status, sexual orientation, race and gender”.
Previously the Government established the Commission for Equity and Human Rights (CEHR). The proposed body did draw together the three bodies that was accountable for the proposed laws banning discrimination in education and technical programs on grounds of age, sexual identity and faith or belief.
The Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), No longer in force. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights, established under the Equality Act 2006, came into being on 1 October 2007. It has since rebranded itself the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), mission is to be the catalyst for change Enabling and encouraging improvement by bringing people together to devise solutions, and building capacity in other organisations to help them to effect change. The effect of this body and it’s demand for accountability will post brexit become augmented, as the UK will have increase responsibility for its domains, hence human rights will be an over arching issue, all should prepare to address in practice and policies.
Face book sharing is an increasing concern, and the legislation seems to place a standard in terms of workplace policies. This underlines the necessity for company polices to be precisely worded – the boss should try to protect the condition where it is not simply the actions that have taken their company into disrepute or obvious conflict.
The Equality Act (Disability) Regulations 2010, which exempt the propensity to steal as a covered disability, sex discrimination laws impacting male and female on sexual harassment, a collective arrangement specifying a minimum age for the dismissal of men and women,
Prejudice at grounds of sexual identity, did not come under the direct terms of the 1975 Act and capability of anti-discrimination law to shield Homosexuals and persons living with HIV, are all areas suffering from ambiguity and uncertainty of forms in which it aims to promote inclusion and deal with prejudice.
True to form, the integration of disabilities into this modern harmonized system raised unique difficulties. Prominent in these discrepancies is the exclusion from the DDA of indirect discrimination, the inclusion within it of a fair change requirement and of what was commonly regarded as ‘disability-related discrimination’?
The decision in Eweida v British Airways, that there was no discrimination where a Christian member of check-in staff was not allowed to wear her cross visibly at work has received much publicity, despite the fact that BA changed its policy before the case even reached the tribunal. Demonstrative, of the havoc of indirect discrimination in the workplace and a gray area to focus on.
Mark Higgins, head of employment at law firm Betesh Fox, sets a fine tune by stating ‘Your organisation has a ‘duty of care’ towards the employee and the law is on the employee side, If the treatment takes the form of race, sex or disability discrimination, one could bring a claim to an employment tribunal against the employer, ones boss or both.’ He may entirely correct about bringing a claim to the tribunal, however in light of Rich Berry’s position that; ”The Law is Inadequate to Challenge Multiple Discrimination, the current patchwork of anti-discrimination statutes is inadequate to address and challenge discrimination on multiple grounds” . After analysing facts of the present state of the legislations above, I cannot safely insist that the law is on the employee side entirely.
It is also my view, that there may be an issue with the exception of institutions of public authority who could be liable for discrimination on grounds of ethnicity under s 19B. (namely either (i.e. any House of Parliament; a individual conducting duties in connection with trials in Parliament; the Security Service; the National Intelligence Service; the Government Communications Headquarters; and a unit or part of a unit of either of the Navy, Military or Air Forces of the UK.
While, the concept of ‘public authority’ under the present acts is intentionally broad in that it covers those whose role entails activities of a public nature, even private sector organizations. It has fewer exceptions today, One can admit, it has definitely decreased the institutions which have historically not been subject to judicial scrutiny.
As, if my views and those of the commenter’s I put forward, may or may not be acceptable it is definitely good advice in view of the arcas code of practice and the ability of the tribunal to increase awards up to 25% by Businesses found guilty of discrimination, for failure to comply with arcas like policy and procedure. So be aware and conform your policies and procedures and it is also a sound word to the wise, that you, the business will often find it impossible to accomplish your targets, because you may not take strong measures against prejudice. Employees may feel frustrated and may be less involved in work. Discrimination can also impact the confidence and loyalty of workers. This way, businesses will lose skilled employees, which may drastically effect your financial prosperity.