Equality Act 2010, Protection against Direct Discrimination - Coursework Example

Lecturer Equality Act Introduction Discrimination in the workplace is an outlawed practice. Although it has been going on for along time, the law does not condone it. In UK, several laws have been enacted to legislate over this matter. The most significant step was made in the year 2003 when the government enacted Employment Equality Act (Religion and Belief) to help in defending the rights of employees who might be discriminated in their workplace because of their diverse religious or philosophical beliefs1. This was done in compliance to the European Union Directive 2000/78/EC on Equal Treatment directory which actually advocated for non-discriminatory practices in the workplace based on race, religion, beliefs, age and gender. However, this law was revoked in 20101 and replaced by the Equality Act. This paper critically analyzes the application of the Equality Act in addressing the issues of discrimination in the workplace based on religion and beliefs2. It does this by analyzing how it has been analyzing how effectively it can be used to adequately protect the workers from discrimination. The uses of Equality Act (2010) The Equality Act is a very important legislation which, if stringently complied to, can help in eradicating any cases of discrimination in the workplace. Meaning, it can offer an ultimate solution to the challenges which have been faced by the workers who have been, in one way or another, suffered damages as a result of their religious and philosophical beliefs. It does this in many ways as discussed herein: Protection against Direct Discrimination By offering protection to the employees against direct discrimination, the Equality Act advocates for the avoidance of the discrimination of employees because of their religious beliefs which has been used as a subject for this practice. As a matter of fact, each and every person has to choose whether to practice or not to practice any religion3. However, regardless of their choice, none of them should be discriminated upon. Unfortunately, in many cases, several employees have complained of being mistreated because of holding different religious and philosophical views rather than those of their colleagues, bosses or employer. It is such a practice which this law condemns. It is not allowed to subject a person to any form of discrimination simply because of their religious belief. Whether a person belongs to whichever religious faith, they should be left alone to enjoy it so long as it is legally recognized and does not lead to the violation of other people’s rights4. An example of how a direct discrimination can occur is when a person is denied an opportunity to be recruited, trained, promoted or sacked because of their religious faith. However, as the law required, there should always be equality in the workplace. Whenever there is any vacancy to fill, the position should be filled transparently. Meaning, it is the most qualified candidate who should be hired. While doing that, no reference should be made to their religious or philosophical belief5. The same trend should continue when there is a need to offer training to employees or promote them whenever need arises. Therefore, as this act mandates, all these activities should be done without any form of discrimination. Otherwise, if any mischief if observed, the victim is free to lodge complain and even take a legal action against such employers6. In Grainger plc v Nicholson, the defendant was taken to court for violating this law. Instead of complying with it, the employer decided to violate it. On realizing that the complainant had a different view about climate change, he was dismissed as a worker. Meaning, his philosophical views on climate change rendered him jobless. This is a violation of the law. It was discriminatory to sack this particular worker because of the opinion he held about climate change and environmental conservation7. Instead of doing this, the employer would have looked for any reasonable ground on which the worker would be dismissed8. This, it implies that the employer was acting proving to be discriminatory since he was not justified to rely on the employee’s philosophical beliefs to render him jobless. Based on the above discussion, it is evidenced that the Equality Act 2010 can be so instrumental in protecting the employees against direct discrimination. Despite subscribing to different religious or philosophical beliefs, the employees are entitled to their respective job positions wherever they work9. Any attempt to interfere with them by denying them what they rightful deserve is not only discriminatory, but outlawed. Since it violates the individual rights, it should be addressed using this legislation. Therefore, if effectively used, then a person’s religious or philosophical belief will not be used to disadvantage them and directly discriminate on them10. Therefore, in order to avoid any controversy, each and every employer should safeguard the individual rights of their workers. Meaning, whenever any employee holds a different religious or philosophical view (whether it conflict the employer’s), they should not be interfered with. Once left to exercise their beliefs, they will work without any unnecessary obstruction. Protection against Indirect Discrimination One of the other important roles of the Equality Act 2010 is that it can be instrumental in protecting the employee from indirect discrimination. Unlike in direct discrimination, protection against indirect discrimination defending the employees from unlawful acts which might be placed on them as a result of the employer’s religious and philosophical beliefs11. As a human being, the employer is free to choose their religious and philosophical beliefs. This is their right which is of course guaranteed by the constitution. However, regardless of their position, they should not impose it on others. Otherwise, they will be violating the constitution. Even if they are employers, they are not supposed to impose rules and policies which contravene their employees’ beliefs. Equality Act 2010 strongly argues against the tendency of employers formulating policies or regulations in their companies which violate their employees’ religious and philosophical beliefs. In simple terms, the employer is not allowed by the constitution to infringe on their workers’ rights. This means that the employer should not introduce new policies without consulting the workers. Once it involves religious or philosophical beliefs, it should be carefully thought about. Once it is perceived to be capable of causing any tension, it should be scrapped off. An example of such a policy will be when a Protestant employer who worships on a Sunday introduces a new policy which requires that all the workers must report to work on a Friday and remain in their workstations up to evening12. By doing this, it implies that the employer will be violating the religious rights of the people like Muslims who should be worshipping on Friday. Therefore, while making other employees to extend their Friday services, the new policy will be infringing the rights of the Muslims who should be worshipping on the very day. Another example of indirect discrimination is when an employee chooses to be non-religious, but forced to attend church services in their place of work. This can be a very distressing experience to any human being. Once a person chooses, in their right and conscious senses not to pursue any religion, they should be left alone13. Life is about choices and whatever choice made has consequences. Meaning, choosing to be atheist implies that it satisfies the person. Therefore, if the organization introduces as law which requires that all the employees must attend such sermons, it will be indirectly discriminating upon its workers. The same scenario had been decided upon by the court during the Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council in which the plaintiff filed a court suit to the employer for forcing her to remove her hijab while teaching in the classroom. This was a sign of indirect discrimination because it involved forcing a person to adopt a practice which violates her religious doctrines. As a Muslim lady, the plaintiff was supposed to be left free to use her religious dress while performing her duties14. However, ordering her to remove it implies that she was being compelled to conform to other people’s religious beliefs. This is quite discriminatory. Therefore, it is very clear that this act really protects the rights of the employees. They should not be discriminated by the employer. Workplace environment should be conducive for all the workers to survive. Whether they are religious or not, they should feel free from any unnecessary discrimination from the employer. Such situations can be detrimental to them because it can make them feel oppressed and demoralized. Once they are demoralized, they can either decide to reduce the quality of their services, withdraw them or quit. After all, as workers, they need to be made comfortable at times without making them feel constrained to make personal decisions regarding their religious faith15. This act should fiercely protect all the workers from any such indirect discrimination by their employers. Protection against Victimization Victimization is punishment of a person after participating in a certain action. It is a very common phenomenon in the workplace for people especially employees to be victimized after participating in activities which are deemed to be controversial or critical in nature16. Meaning, whenever a worker boldly does something which opposes the position of the employer, they might be victimized. Meaning, they may lose some benefits which they might have gotten had they not have behaved or acted in the same manner. Actually, the Equality Act of 2010 advocates for the eradication of victimization of employees in the workplace. It clearly stipulates that the victimization of an employee who does a right thing by criticizing the employer is unlawful. According to this act, no employer is supposed to deny any employee the privilege that they rightfully deserve simply because they are outspoken. An example of such an incidence can be experienced when a worker lodges complaints about a wrongful act committed against them or their colleagues. Such an action can happen when the employee participates in demonstrations, strikes or go slow. Although these are legal mechanisms through which the workers can express their dissatisfaction with the system, they are often victimized for doing that. Whenever it happens, they can be victimized by being denied salary increments, promotion or interdiction. Unfortunately, the situation becomes worse when such actions are based on one’s religious faith. This is what this legislation advocate for. Rather than ‘punishing’ a rebellious worker, the employer can opt to create stereotypical labels for them. In simple terms, the employer can launch a revenge attack on such errand employees by giving those names such as rebels, troubleshooters and nuisance. These are very bad names which can cause a lot of distress to such workers. A part from showing disrespect to them17, it can be used by colleagues to prove that they are so uncooperative workers with whom no one should associate. Surprisingly, the practicing of such discriminatory acts may be limited to certain classes of workers depending on their religious belief. Meaning, it can only be targeted to people of certain religious or philosophical views. All these are violations which are not accepted by this act. Instead, everyone is expected to refrain from them and not to victimize any worker irrespective f their outspokenness. Based on the above facts, it is evident that the Equality Act 2010 is very much concerned about any cases of victimization to which the workers might be subjected. It emphasizes that no single employer should victimize its workers simply because they are perceived to have taken a different view that might be in opposition of the management or organization’s. Therefore, anything such as denying job opportunity, promotion or training of a deserving worker should not be condoned. It is unlawful since it violates this act. For this reason, all employers should equally treat their workers regardless of their religious or philosophical views whether they do not appeal to the employer. Whether they organize a demonstration against the organization or testify against the management, the employees do not deserve to be victimized. Instead, they should always be treated with the due respect and dignity that they deserve. As stakeholders, they have a lot of contributions to make towards the success of the organization. Protection from Harassment In a workplace, an employee can be exposed to two different kinds of harassments. The first one can come from the employer himself while the second one can be from another third party. However, in both cases, the employer should be made liable especially if the harassment is based on one’s religion and philosophical faith. As clearly spelt out in this act, no single employee should be subjected to any form of harassment whatsoever. Anyone who harasses a worker because of their religious or philosophical belief should know that they are doing a lawful activity since they are violating this law. Therefore, although several employees have been victimized because of this problem, they should know that it is a violation of their rights and should not be condoned at all18. An example of a situation in which an employee is harassed by the employer is when a Sikh worker who often wears a turban to the workplace fails to give in to any pressure from the employer which demands that he should instead remove it and wear a safety helmet. Since it is part of their religious doctrines, the employee would not relent to that. Because of that, the employer can decide to harass him by giving a stereotypical nickname, quarrel him or threatening to punish him he fails to comply with the required standards. Such experiences are quite embarrassing, distressing and degrading. Whenever it is done as explained, an employee will definitely feel degraded. Therefore, with the enforcement of this new act, no such thing will ever occur again in the workplace. All the employees will be protected from such hostile acts. This is closely related to Eweda v Airways PLC case in which the employee accused the employer for failing to allow her to use a necklace (cross) in line with her Christian doctrines. When ordered only to use the organization’s uniforms, she felt harassed and decided to settle the matter in the court of law. In R on the application of Watkins-Singh) v Governing body of Aberdare Girls’ High School, a case of indirect discrimination was encountered when a high school student of Sikh origin was wearing kara, a very important religious symbol that the Sikhs should be wearing. However, as part of the school regulations, no student was allowed to wear anything like jewelry. Hence, when the complainant was seen wearing the religious symbol, she was prohibited by the school. Although this was part of a school policy, it was a sign of discrimination based on religious beliefs. It was wrong to do it since the Kara is a very important symbol amongst the Sikhs. Therefore, while formulating school policies, it was better for the management to consider different religious views. The student was not wearing kara for pleasure, but for a fulfillment of her religious doctrines. Therefore, it was a sign of indirect discrimination and harassment. It was not proper to subject this particular student to such kind of distress. Thus, the high court ruled in favor of the student. Meanwhile, this act advocates for the protection of employees from the harassment from the third parties. Meaning, rather than the employer, a worker can be subjected to harassment by their colleagues or by the organization’s clients19. This can happen when one is constantly harassed for either affiliating to a certain religious or philosophical belief or by failing to do so. Since established organizations have several workers each of whom belong to a different school of thought, it is natural that whichever choices made, and there must be those on the other extreme (opposing side). However, whichever the case, each and every worker should know that it is their responsibility to respect one another and not to use their religion as an excuse to attack them unnecessarily20. An example of a harassment by a third party can therefore be experienced when a Christian employee scones their colleagues and gives them stereotypical names such as pagans, heathens and lost individuals who would not enjoy the pleasurable life after death. This is not a good practice. It is uncalled for since it violates other people’s rights. Another scenario can be witnessed when a worker is subjected to a similar treatment by the organization’s clients. However, as already highlighted, in whichever case, the employer should be made liable for the damages. Meaning, they should be made accountable for their employees or clients unacceptable behaviors. However, this can be compelled to take responsibility when the employer informs them about such harassments, but they keep on ignoring even if it continues to be done to that particular employee for a considerable number of times. This is not accepted because it is outlawed by this act. Whenever it happens, the employer can be sued and subjected to the due process of the law. Harassment is not a good practice. Whichever position an employee hold within an organization, they should not be harassed, but be treated with all the dignity that they rightfully deserve21. Protection against Discrimination upon the Termination of the Employment As a matter of fact, anything which has a beginning must have an end. In simple terms, any contract signed between an employer and a worker must expire-be it a contract or permanent engagement. By terminating such engagements, it implies that the formal relationship between these parties comes to an end. However, as human beings, they might still need one another in a way. For instance, the employer can recall the employee in case their services are required by the organization. In such a case, they should feel free to render such services. It will mean that their knowledge, expertise and talents are appreciated by their former boss. On the other hand, a (former) worker also requires the support or services of the (former) boss. For instance, when such a worker approaches the boss to give him a recommendation letter or act as his referee, they should be granted. However, if the employee deliberately opts to deny the worker such services, they would be depriving them of their rights22. As an employer, one should always be ready to act as a referee or recommend their former workers whenever they decide to look for other opportunities elsewhere. However, this situation can become worse particularly when such actions are based on one’s religious and philosophical beliefs. In simple terms, it happens when an employer refuses to recommend a worker because they hold different religious and philosophical views. This is very unfair and should not be condoned at all. Instead, the employer should always be ready to give recommendations to deserving employees who require it. It is quite discriminatory to refuse them such recommendations especially at a time when they rightfully require it. Therefore, by refuting such practices, this law is helping to protect the employees who might be discriminated due to their religious or philosophical beliefs. Similar scenarios have been witnessed in the past. Many people have reported being denied recommendations, both oral and written even if they have been loyally serving their organizations for a very long time. Therefore, it should be upon such employers to know that they should not be doing those practices since they are discriminatory. In addition, they are unlawful as they are in a violation of this act. All the workers should be given equal treatment regardless of their religious or philosophical stances. Otherwise, when an employer does this, they will be denying the workers the rights which are provided to them by the constitution. Therefore, it should be an appeal to such bosses to shun discriminating on their employees simply because they hold different religious and philosophical views. Conclusion Discrimination at the workplace has been a major challenge affecting many employees in different parts of the world. Several workers have been subjected to lots of unfavorable conditions which have caused a lot of distress, mental and psychological torture. This has been done to them by their employers and colleagues and all the other stakeholders within their respective organizations. Based on the above discussions, it is evident that many workers have been discriminated because of their religious and philosophical beliefs23. Thus, they have been harassed, victimized and denied the opportunities that they rightfully deserve on the grounds of their belief. However, this is a very unlawful act because it is discriminatory. When left unchecked, it can negatively impact on the employee, the boss and the organization for which they work. To the worker, such experiences cause a lot of disturbance to them. Therefore, they get distracted from their duties. Instead of concentrating on their jobs, they lose morale and reduce the quality of their service delivery. On the other hand, an employer who is found to have committed such acts can be compelled to pay for the damages caused. Meanwhile, the organization would suffer a blow because, a part from tarnishing its reputation, it will lose some of the most productive workers who would have to quit because they feel discriminated. However, this will be a costly affair since such organizations would have to spend a lot of resources in constantly hiring and training new workers24. Hence, it is upon the management of such organizations to stringently comply with the Equality Act 2010 since it would not only help in creating a favorable working environment for the employees, but also help the organization to create a good reputation and win the confidence of all its stakeholders and the general public. Bibliography Befort Steven and John W. Budd, Invisible Hands, Invisible Objectives: Bringing Workplace Law and Public Policy into Focus (2009) Stanford University Press. Black, Dan A.; Haviland, Amelia M.; Sanders, Seth G.; Taylor, Lowell “Gender Wage Disparities Among the Highly Educated". (2008) Journal of Human Resources 43 (3): 630–659. Darity, William; Mason, Patrick (1998). "Evidence on Discrimination in Employment: Codes of Color, Codes of Gender". (2008) Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (2): 63–90. Elliot, Kimberly Ann, Can Labor Standards Improve Under Globalization? (3rd Edition, Institute for International Economics 2008). Gilmour, David. Dispossessed: The Ordeal of the Palestinians. (Sphere Books 2006). Keith Ewing, Aileen McColgan and Hugh Collins, Labour Law, Cases, Texts and Materials (Hart Publishing 2007) Norman Selwyn, Selwyns Law of Employment Oxford University Press Pager, Devah, Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration (2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press 2004) Papa, Michael J.; Tom D. Daniels, Barry K. Spiker Organizational Communication: Perspectives and Trends (5 ed., SAGE 2000). Simon Honeyball, Honeyball and Bowers Textbook on Employment Law (Oxford University Press 2008) Simon Deakin and Gillian Morris, Labour Law (Hart Publishing 2005) Sowell, Thomas, Minimum Wage Escalation. (Hoover Institution Press 2001) Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] IRLR 484 (EAT). Eweida v British Airways [2010] EWCA Civ 80. Eweida v the United Kingdom and Chaplin v the United Kingdom App.Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, judgment 15 January 2013 Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4. R (on the application of SB) v Head teacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 R on the application of Watkins-Singh) v Governing body of Aberdare Girls’ High School [2008] EWHC 1865. Read More