Legislatures governing Equality Opportunities - Essay Example

Legislatures governing Equality Opportunities Introduction: The grounds of inequality or discrimination are common for both the Employment Equality Act 1998 and The Equal Status Act 2000. The fundamental distinction between these two pieces of law is that while the former mainly confines itself to the legal issues surrounding employment laws in Ireland, the latter concerns itself with laws relating to provision of goods and services etc. The nine aspects under the equal status laws in which discrimination is illegal are: On the grounds of Gender Marital status- whether married or unmarried Family status Sexual preferences Religion professed Age Race colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins Presence of disability Membership of traveller community (What is the Employment Equality Act?). Benefits and challenges of Equality legislations. At the European Council meeting in Lisbon during March 2000, the Heads of States and various Governments of the European Union met in order to make arrangements for the European Union to meet the challenges posed by the technological changes during 21st Century. This plan which came to be known as the Lisbon strategy was launched during June 2000 with the aim of transforming the EU into a “knowledge based economy” and to channelise the growth and development of the EU citizens (Accessibility Legislation - An Insight. 2005). The main challenges would include meeting the needs and aspirations of the people of the EU, especially in work areas like electronics, content and services including public servicing and the development of specialised skills for its people. Under the EU a public interactive forum has been established on how to make the benefits of computer technology compatible with old and elderly persons. This Commission also seeks to address to the difficulties encountered by the elderly in managing computers, mobile phones and internet services. The three areas in which the EC seeks to emphasise are “public procurements, certification and use of legislation” (Accessibility Legislation - An Insight. 2005). Critical analysis Under the provisions of Employment Equality Act 1998, of Ireland, any form of discrimination, on the basis of sex, marital or family status, sexual preferences, religion, age, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, presence of disability, and membership of traveller community is illegal and unenforceable. But it is widely believed that these laws could only be enforced on an “individualistic justice model” (Equality Coalition. 2004, P 5). Rather then the law itself, its enforcement is of more concern since large scale violations could go unnoticed unless immediate claims are made and registered. However this may create risks and difficulties upon underprivileged citizens, especially minorities, and they may not be aware of their rights and privileges under the law. Amending Section 2 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, Section 3 of the Equality Act 2004, provides that concessions may be made in the discrimination clauses when recruiting employees for the delivery of personal services at the residence. Again, it is seen that, enforcement of non- discrimination clause does not apply under Section 37 (1) of the EEA 1998, in the case of a religious trust or body which could legally discriminate between employee or prospective employee, in order to preserve its religious sanctity, or to prevent employee or prospective employee from undermining it” (Employment Equality Act, 1998. 1998). Section 48 of the Equality Act has introduced Amendment 3 of the Equal Status Act in order to reflect the definition of the indirect discrimination in DIN 2000/43/EC. It is based on the disadvantages or discrimination that has already taken place, and thus does not reflect potential discrimination and methods by which they could be eliminated. Further challenges posed by the various legislatures relate to the fact that the Irish Government has not been successful in Amending the Equal Status Act 2000 to include the functions of the state in the definition of ‘service’.Another defect has been that the Equality Act fails to raise sanctions and remedies in Irish law to comply with ECJ jurisprudence regarding sanctions and directives. (Equality Coalition. 2004, P 6-7). It has also to be specifically mentioned that the recommendations of the European Council, Economic Court of Justices (ECJ) and other international judicial bodies needs to be integrated into existing laws of Ireland. These may pose integration difficulties, since the EC Directive many sometimes be in disagreement with national laws. However it needs to be said that the EC Directives assume precedence over local laws and need to be evolved into the system in order to gain the benefits of legal jurisprudence. This can be done, either by scrapping the existing laws and introducing new laws, concurrent with the guidelines issued by EU laws, etc.or suitably amending existing laws to effectively include the same. It may be said that the true effects of equality laws could only be implemented and substantiated, by taking an international perspective, especially with regard to issues posed by globalisation and economic development. The enforcement of the Disability Discrimination Act, 1995 marked a new era for reinforcing the rights of elderly and disabled people. This is applicable to the providers of goods, facilities and services and is meant to surmount the human and intercommunication obstacles that deter accessibility among the disabled. An offshoot of this law has been the Disability Rights Commission which engages in the chalking out of programmes for future code of practices and the protection of rights of the disabled. However the important factor is that not all people are using computer web sites and fewer use the graphic images at all. Therefore, it is necessary to evolve different modifications in technology to benefit this segment of disabled people. (Accessibility Legislation - An Insight. 2005). It also contains certain investigative measures in which cases relating to harassments, or victimisation could be examined and suitable punitive measures and compensation awarded to the aggrieved party by the appropriate authorities. The nine aspects which are considered as discriminatory under Equal Status are the same as that prevalent under Employment Equality Act and they are with regard to gender, marital status, family status, sexual preferences, religion, presence of any disability, age , race and whether member of Traveller community.” In 2000, the Equal Status Act came into operation. This law sought to promote equality, prohibit certain kinds of discrimination and prohibit harassment. In effect, the law extended the ban on discrimination to anybody buying goods, using services, obtaining accommodation and attending educational establishments on the same nine grounds as the Employment Equality Act, including age” (Equal Status Act). Next, two case laws dealing with the equal status laws are being taken up for discussion. Case law under the Equal Opportunities Act: Two complainants Mrs. A, and her son M v. Primary School. The claimant Mrs. A lodged a complaint stating that her son was unduly harassed in school and was victimized. The management of the school had failed to solve the problem and he was being unduly victimized and suspended for no fault of his. His mother requested that he be taught by the resource teacher but this was not done and he was sent back to his regular class, much against his wishes. Mrs. A claimed that her son was refused confirmation because he had lodged a complaint under the Equal Status Act. The respondents, however, maintained that no discrimination was shown, and since he was an undisciplined boy, it became necessary to subject him to the normal disciplinary norms of the institution. However, the Equality Officer found that the respondent, Mrs. A, was harassed and discriminated against by the authorities, and was awarded a compensation of € 850. In the case of A, her son the Equality Officer verdicted that he was discriminated against, in that he was not offered confirmation for the reason that he had filed a complaint against the institution under the Equal Status Act. For this he was offered a compensation of € 2000, and on the charges of victimisation, he was awarded a compensation of € 3000. (Annual Report 2006. 2007, P. 24). In yet another case dealing with the Equal Status, dealing with two disabled couple, Mr. and Mrs. Y v. Donegal Country Council December 52006-060, they had applied for house ownership under the Shared Ownership Scheme for financing purchase of home. They applied for a share purchase (40-60%) scheme while renting the remaining share from the Council over a stipulated period of time. The Council rejected their application on the grounds that they were not in full time employment and also, their income levels did not meet the Council’s requirements. This verdict distressed the disabled couple since the Application Form did not specify that only full time employed couples were entitled to avail of housing loans. They were beneficiaries of Disability Allowance and also receiving incomes under the community employment scheme for the past two years. However, the Council did not consider their income under the community employment scheme and had rejected their application on the basis of disability allowance alone. Moreover, the Council had viewed their request on stricter terms of 50:50 for 0 year term, instead of 40:60 over a 5 year term. Upon the case being taken up by the Equality Officer, the Council was constrained to request the disabled couple to make and fresh application for reconsideration of the house loan, which was subsequently granted to them. However, the respondents felt that they were at a financial loss, since land prices had appreciated during this time, and they could not gain the benefits of First Time Buyer’s Grant of € 3700. The Equality Officer felt that the respondents did not consider all the material facts, while applying for the loan during the first time. However, it is verdicted that the disabled couple should be compensated to the tune of € 7400, being twice the amount of Grant which they had forfeited due to rejection of their initial application by the County. (Annual Report 2006. 2007, P. 25 - 26). The Employment Equality Act 1998 is applicable to both the public sector as well as the private sector employees. It could also be applied for applicants seeking employment. This is applicable in the areas of salary, occupational training, the access to employment facilities working experience and the problems dealing with either harassment or victimisation of people in the work place. Under the Employment Equality Act 1998, any person who has been discriminated against, may apply to the Equality Tribunal within a period of 6 months of the date of occurrence of the discrimination to the Equality Tribunal, The Director of this tribunal is empowered to increase this period up to 12 months, if it feels it necessary to do so. (What is the Employment Equality Act?). The avenues available for redressal of grievances would take the form of equal pay cases in which case, the compensation available could be up to 3 years of arrears pay from the date of the claim, and in cases dealing with equality status, it could extend upto 2 years of pay (€ 12,697 or £ 10,000). (What is the Employment Equality Act?). The decided case laws relating to employment or employability discrimination is next considered. In the case of Michael McDonnell v. Iarnród Éireann, the respondent, Michael applied for a job of fitter in the defendant company. He was called for the interview and was informed that his selection would be considered after the medical examination. The attending nurse who took the medical tests confirmed that he was having hearing problems and thus could not be considered for appointment. However, it was felt necessary for a second opinion to confirm this fact. Even in the second medical test, the verdict of poor hearing was established. Thus his claim was rejected since his physical condition, especially hearing, did not meet the Company’s norms. Although he was promised a medical report regarding his health, this was not given to him. Micheal, however, was able to produce a medical report from his General Practitioner to the effect that he was medically fit for attending a fitter’s job, but this medical certificate was not acceptable to the Company. Upon appeal, the Equality Authority required that an independent practicing medical professional be assigned the job of assessing the health of the candidate and submit his assessment. This was finally done 7 days before the hearing. During the hearing he was awarded a compensation of € 5,000 for the harassment and mental stress undergone by him. (Annual Report 2006. 2007, P 41-42). Yet another case relates to discrimination shown by the Company’s management to a pregnant employee. In the case of Pedreschi v. Xerox ( Europe) Limited DEC – E 2006 -054, the respondent was employed as a payroll administrator. She alleged that she was being harassed by her higher-ups in the Company to provide proof of medical visits during her pregnancy, along with other evidence of treatment details during her condition. She also alleged that her work was being redistributed to other colleagues without her knowledge and consent. She informed the Human Resources (HR) Manager about these occurrences but of no avail. Finally, she discussed these matters with her General Practitioner (GP), who, after examination advised her that, in her present condition, it would be unwise on her part, to continue working, since she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. This was also informed to the Company’s Doctor. Just five days before she proceeded on Medical leave, the Company informed her that her position was being made redundant and now she had to apply for redundancy claims. The matter was then referred to the Equality Officer who, upon scrutiny, found out that she had indeed complied with the provision of medical details and visits relating to her pregnancy, to her higher ups in the Company. During the course of the investigation, the officer also determined that she was indeed, a victim of discrimination due to her pregnant condition. She was also being treated with far less favour than before her pregnancy, but refuted the allegation by her that her work load was unjustly reallocated. After considering all the aspects, the Equality officer determined that she should be awarded a compensation of € 7000 in view of her unjust discrimination, harassment and mental stress she was forced to undergo during her confinement. (Annual Report 2006. 2007, P. 42-43). Conclusion: However, it is also necessary for Irish lawmakers to take a global perspective of the issues surrounding equality legislation and attempt to bring in EC and ECJ laws into Irish legal system in order to gain a cohesive and integrated legal system, in line with the demands of the new international legal system arising out of globalisation and high rate of economic growth and development in Ireland. Works Cited The Equal opportunities Act. Purpose of the Act. 2005. 30 Dec. 2007 . Equal Status Act. Equality legislation. Age & Opportunity. 30 Dec. 2007 . Annual Report 2006. The Equality Authority. Membership of the Traveller Community and Disability. P. 24. 2007. 30 Dec. 2007 . What is the Employment Equality Act? The Equality Tribunal. 30 Dec. 2007 . Annual Report 2006. Pedreschi v Xerox (Europe). Limited DEC – E2006 – 05. Pregnancy/Maternity Leave. P. 42 -43. 2007. 30 Dec. 2007 . Annual Report 2006. Access to Employment. Michael McDonnell v Iarnród Éirean. P 41-42. 2007. 30 Dec. 2007 . Annual Report 2006. Mr X and Ms Y v Donegal County Council DEC- S2006-060. P. 25 – 26. 2007. 30 Dec. 2007 . Employment Equality Act, 1998. Irish Statute Book. Exclusion of discrimination on particular grounds in certain circumstances. 1998. 11 Jan. 2008. . Equality Coalition. Response to the Green Paper on anti-discrimination and equal treatment. P. 5-7. 2004. 11 January 2008 . Read More