Labour Law seen examination - Essay Example

Thus, each individual application must be treated on the merits. Fareeda Fareeda may be able to make a claim for direct discrimination given that she surpassed all the requirements that were listed by Allan in their invitation. However, there is no express mention by the Allan’s of any reason that they may have considered to select Lady Monique in Fareeda’s place. The only statement that may allude to any discrimination is their justification of Lady Monique’s associations with ‘the right sort of families and the right sort of children’.

From the facts of Mandla v Dowell Lee [1982]1, it follows that Muslims may also form part of a nationality with distinct ethnic origins in order to be classified as a racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976. The scope of discrimination was expanded by this Act to people who were treated unfavorably as a result of racial profiling of third parties (Weathersfield Ltd v Sargeant)2. With the inception of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, religious discrimination took statutory form by protecting people with “any religion, religious belief or philosophical belief”. . However individually she may not be able to be compensated for her grievance and her remedy must be based on the validity of the claims of the other applicants.

Beverly McLaughlin Beverly also fulfills the requirements of the job offer. Her claim would be based on the assertion that she was discriminated on account of her age which is protected under the Equality Bill 2006. Given that she was more than qualified for the job, the Allan’s belief that Lady Monique would have more connections with the right families and the right children could be more than attributable in Beverly’s favor since she has more experience as a nanny working under an extremely wealthy employer for 20 years.

Lady Elizabeth Porter Lady Elizabeth Porter can assert that she was discriminated against on account of her blindness under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, since her disability qualifies as one recognized by s.1 of the 1995 Act (as amended by s.18 of the Act of 2005); “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”. Her credentials are also far superior than that of Lady Monique’s.

Moreover, the Allan’s are no longer under the protection of the 1995 regime which exempted employers with less than 20 employees, as the 2005 amendment changes that to include small employers as well. However, in this case, the Allan’s can resort to the defense of ‘justification’ since the child to be taken care of is 2 years old and would require to be tended to much more closely than a blind person can afford. Under the act, this defense may be