This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.
Learn more
#9730 - Equality In Employment Part 2 I Tutorial - Employment Law
Notice: PDF Preview
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF
sample above, taken from our
Employment Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have
odd formatting.
Occurs where the respondent imposes a practice or requirement on everyone, but the requirement has an adverse effect on persons possessing a particular protected characteristic
4 conditions to be satisfied:
RESPONDENT APPLIES A PCP TO ALL PERSONS
May be a condition of the employment, a recruitment policy, a non-contractual works policy or another factor which the respondent considers to be desirable rather than essential
PUTS PERSONS WITH THE CLAIMANT’S PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC AT A PARTICULAR DISADVANTAGE
Claimant has to give evidence:
Number of those who can comply with the new provision from group 1 and group 2 – difference of more than 5% = finding of ID
Each side will want to choose a pool which favours their case; respondent will want a pool in which the proportion of the group which suffer a disadvantage is small; however the claimant will want to choose a pool in which the group is large; ultimately for the tribunal to decide
Tribunal moving away from stats based so to decide this may use general sociological evidence; for example more women than men have childcare responsibilities so imposition of a shift pattern would put women at a particular disadvantage (London Underground v Edwards):
Although difference less than 5%, tribunal decided that the provision did put claimant’s sex at disadvantage due to bottom statistic; upheld by CA
THE PCP IS TO THE CLAIMANT’s DISADVANTAGE
Proved by the Claimant demonstrating that they cannot comply with the PCP
If the first 3 stages are established there will be a finding of IA unless… respondent shows that it was proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
PROPORTIONATE MEANS OF ACHIEVING LEGITIMATE AIM
Respondent can avoid liability if it can objectively justify it, usually on the grounds of business efficacy
Must demonstrate:
E.g. employer introduces new working hours whereby everyone has to work late on a Friday; one employee says this amounts to religious discrimination; she’s Jewish and has to be home early on a Friday; boss may be able to objectively justify this change in hours by showing that the staff are needed to sort out the weeks’ accounts
Either:
Did not occur in course of employment; or
Took all reasonable steps to ensure that the discrimination did not take place
ACTIVITY 3 – INDIRECT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
EA 2010 – HARRASSMENT
Likely to arise where colleagues or a manager make comments
Not to marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity
Claims can also be made on association or perception – e.g. harassed as family member is gay
Can relate to:
E.g. sexually explicit calendar
Tribunal will apply:
i.e. is it reasonable that offence was caused
EA 2010 – VICTIMISATION
Should be able to pursue a claim without the fear of retaliation; e.g....
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.
We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).
Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.