Discrimination in the place of work has been a barrier to the United Kingdom's development. The constitution of the country recognizes that everyone is equal. In 2010, the Equality Act was promulgated with an aim of reducing economic and social disparities within the United Kingdom. Following its promulgation, the business community expressed their concerns on its implication. This paper is set to examine the United Kingdom Equality Act 2010 as well as its consequences for the business community.
The Equality Act 2010 was introduced with the view of ensuring that discrimination in the workplace is eliminated. Certain characteristics are protected by the act. These characteristics are believed to be the main causes of discrimination (Hepple 2011). They include gender, age, civil partnership and marriage, sexual orientation and sex, maternity and pregnancy, as well as gender reassignment. In the past, legislations enacted to protect the vulnerable were not peculiar to the characteristics. The act is regarded as a combination of the previous acts. The act replaces the previous regulations on discrimination. Another important purpose of the Equality Act is to provide a framework for the implementation of both national and international laws.
The act also underlines the importance of business organizations in the protection of human rights (Fredman 2011). These business organizations have the power to advance equality as well as fostering near perfect public relations. The act provides organizations with a way of ensuring diversity within the workplaces. It recognizes diversity as an important element in the operations of the businesses. The actions suggested include ensuring a broader network for the recruitment exercise as well employing impartial techniques in selection. Positive action in the recruitment exercise is also permitted. Such positive actions may include selecting an individual with a certain protected characteristic as a ‘tie-breaker'.
There are limits imposed on the questions involving the health of an individual. In the recruitment process, an individual is protected from some sensitive questions. For instance, an individual cannot be forced to reveal HIV status against his or her will. The employers protect individuals from unfair actions. When a person possesses the protected characteristics, it is essential that the organizations treat him or her fairly (Hepple 2011). The act also protects individuals who develop a mental illness during their working periods. Most mental illnesses have the potential to hinder the productivity of the affected employee. This makes it hard for the business organizations to continue engaging the services of the affected individuals.
Discrimination by sex is clearly highlighted in section 11 (a) of the Equality Act. This is stated about a woman or a man. The section also explicitly underlines the definition of discrimination because of sex. In section 13 (6), states that any action that demeans a breastfeeding mother still qualifies as discrimination on grounds of sex. This area was not previously touched by various acts. It is essential for the employer to provide an adequate and hygienic space for the breastfeeding employees. The employers are obligated to offer additional time for breastfeeding upon request by a breastfeeding employee. To do this, employers need to enact policies that can be used as guidelines in the application of the law.
The breastfeeding mothers have a right to breastfeed in public including working places. These mothers are also allowed to breastfeed within private businesses. In 2014, Ashford Leisure Trust (ALT) agreed on an out of court settlement with Sophie Howe for breaching the equality act. Miss Howes was breastfeeding her restless child on the steps of a pool centre managed by the ALT. Within a few seconds, the manager of the centre approached her and arrogantly told her to stop breastfeeding the baby since the act was offensive. She was then ejected from the centre. Miss Howes threatened to take action since her right under the equality act was breached. The company accepted an out of court settlement of the matter with Miss Howe.
In the equality act, an individual business might be responsible if a breastfeeding woman is unfairly treated (Hepple 2011). If such kind of behaviour is brought to the attention of the management of a given organization, an action is required. The main aim of the breastfeeding section is to give breastfeeding women sufficient confidence. This would enable them to feed their babies without fear of discrimination. The act does not bind employers to provide additional space for the breastfeeding mothers but only to ensure that the parents are comfortable while breastfeeding. To avoid litigations, several businesses have created breastfeeding rooms that are open to both the staff and visitors. Any woman who wants to breastfeed is free to do that.
Section 18 (2), highlights matters involving discrimination on grounds of maternity issues and pregnancy. Maternity and pregnancy discrimination should be avoided at the work and public places (Gray 2013). This type of discrimination involves treating a woman unfairly because she is pregnant, recently given birth or breastfeeding. Such unfavourable treatments within a business organization can potentially affect the business operations. When a woman is denied promotion because she gave birth recently may result in unfavourable treatment. This can lead to lawsuits against the organizations. This section also provides for maternity leave for a pregnant woman. An individual cannot be denied maternity leave with specific start and end dates. During maternity leave, an individual should enjoy the full rights as other employees.
In the McDaid v The Western Health as well as Social Care Trust (WHSCT) in Northern Ireland, the court compensated the complainant on grounds of unfair treatment during maternity leave. The complainant, Miss McDaid returned to her place of work after a maternity leave. During her maternity leave, there were ten public holidays. The trust maintained that McDaid's was not entitled to the public holidays. This was in contrast to the contractual agreements. In her contract, she is entitled to ten public holidays per year. In the initial stages, the trust rejected McDaid's appeal. With the help of the Chattered Society of Physiotherapy, she was able to secure compensation as well as reinstatement. This landmark ruling was a lesson to business organizations that violate the Equality Act 2010 (Thompson 2016).
Before the introduction of the Equality Act (EA) 2010, the main act that protected individuals living with disabilities against discrimination was the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1995. In the first section of the act, disability was described as any mental or physical impairment with short-term as well as long-term effects on the individuals (Thompson 2016). These impairments must be able to affect the daily activities of the persons affected. Discrimination against a physically challenged person in a workplace can lead to a lawsuit against a given business organization. Section 5 of the Act states that any disabled individual discriminated against has the power to begin legal proceedings in a court.
Since the enactment of the Equality Act, the most notable change in the definition of disability is the introduction of future effect of a given disability (Hepple 2011). The act recognizes disabilities that have potentials to affect an individual in the future. In section 6, disability is regarded as any impairment with the potential of affecting the daily activities of an individual. Additionally, it recognizes any impairment with a potential of affecting an individual in the future. In section 13 (3), the act recommends treating a disabled person in a more favorable manner as compared to the non-disabled without any complaint of discrimination. In that circumstance, it is prudent to guarantee that persons living with disabilities are comfortable in their workplaces.
Discriminating against an individual with protected characteristics is prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. These protected characteristics are highlighted in section 4 of the act. Disability is one of the characteristics highlighted under this section (Fredman 2011). The Act requires that goods and services provided to the physically challenged should be disability friendly. For instance, sanitary accommodation in all workplaces should be disability friendly. For an individual to be considered, disable, such a person must meet the definitions provided in the Act. Direct discrimination occurs when the disabled are excluded from certain acts due to their disabilities (Butlin 2011). For example, an employer can refuse to employ an individual on grounds of disability. This kind of discrimination can take three forms. They include rejecting an individual because of disability, perceived disability, as well as association with a disabled individual.
Indirect discrimination occurs when certain policies, procedures, as well as practices of a given business organization disadvantage the physically challenged (Fredman 2011). For an employee claiming s/he has been indirectly discriminated has to prove that s/he was disadvantaged. For instance, when an employer decides to give the employees a task involving heavy lifting, individuals with back problems can be disadvantaged. This could lead to a claim of indirect discrimination if the complainant can show that the employer had a prior knowledge the condition. The burden of proof lies with the complainant in such a case.
In Coleman vs. Attridge Law, a mother of a physically challenged child alleged discrimination because of association with the child. For instance, she said the employer denied her flexible working hours. She was forced to work according to the schedule provided by the organization. This was the same schedule that was used by other employees who had non-disabled children. Her employer disputed the allegations but also insisted that even if the allegations were true, the law only protected the disabled individuals. This was about the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The case was then referred to the European Court of Justice for further deliberations. This was before the enactment of the Equality Act 2010.
The court held that discrimination could be extended beyond the physically challenged individual. Disability by association is also illegal. Discriminating against a given person such as a mother of a physically challenged child also amounts to discrimination (Hepple 2011). It is crucial to realize that this can also lead to lawsuits against the perpetrator. The main aim of the court's ruling was to eliminate all forms of disability. In the decision, the court held that such a case could only be successful when applied to a workplace incident. This was a case before the enactment of the Equality Act. The Act clearly stipulates that discrimination on grounds of association be prohibited.
In Price v Action Tec Services, an employee was dismissed for reasons that she would be unreliable since her husband was suffering from leukaemia (Warner's Solicitors 2016). The tribunal of employment made a decision that the worker was mistreated or discriminated against due to spouse's disability. This was based on a stereotypical assumption. The employer claimed that the performance of the employee was likely to due to association with the husband. This was direct discrimination on grounds of association. It is essential for businesses to avoid stereotypical assumptions that could lead to discrimination. Discrimination on grounds of disability can lead to lawsuits instituted against organizations. These could affect their reputation as well as productivity.
Discrimination by age is also prohibited in the equality act (Thompson, 2016). Employers should not discriminate against job seekers, employees, and trainees on grounds of age. This type of discrimination can take four forms. These include direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, as well as victimization. Direct discrimination can also occur in three different ways. These forms include discriminating an individual for their age, perceived age, or association with a person of a given age. All these forms of discrimination are prohibited.
Section 5 of the Equality Act prohibits discrimination of a person by age. Discrimination on grounds of age applies to recruitment, dismissal, contract, training, as well as transfers. It protects individuals of all ages from discrimination (Gray 2013). There has been a misconception that section 5 only protects the older individuals. In Wilkinson v Springwell Electrical Limited, the company dismissed Miss Wilkinson due to her capability. The company made several assumptions based on her age. She was dismissed for being too young. These assumptions proved inaccurate since she had the potential to perform these tasks. The company did not put down any objective reasons for their actions. She won her claim against the company and was compensated.
In section 13 of the Equality Act, individuals are protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation refers to romantic feeling experience by an individual towards another person. Based on feelings, four orientations exist (Gray 2013). These include heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, as well as asexual. Since most individuals in workplaces belong to a given orientations, they rarely appreciate the existence of a different orientation. These different orientations lead to harassment, victimization, as well as denying them benefits. These kinds of discrimination fall into direct or indirect discrimination. It is essential to ensure that discrimination is eliminated in workplaces.
In Smith v Ideal Shopping Direct Limited, Mr Smith was openly harassed by a fellow employee for being gay. The employee had also referred to him as a ‘bitch'. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the words were discriminative. The employee was considered to have harassed Mr Smith. The EAT maintained that the company was to put in place policies to avoid such discriminatory behaviors. The principal purpose of the harassment was to dent the image of the victim. Therefore, it was held that Smith was harassed and discriminated against by the employee.
The race is also a protected characteristic in the Equality Act. Discrimination based on race has affected several workplaces in the United Kingdom (Gray 2013). It is considered the most challenging type of discrimination to detect. This could occur in several ways including recruitment or promotion on grounds of ethnic or racial background. Employers can discriminate without their knowledge. This has been the defense used by several employers sued for racial or ethnic discrimination. Section 9 of the Equality Act prohibits discrimination of individuals on based on race. If an employer refuses to recruit, promote, award, or cater for the welfare of a person on racial grounds, s/he can be sued.
Another form of racial discrimination occurs when an individual is treated in a different way because of their association with a particular race or race. This is one of the most common forms of discrimination (Gray 2013). Business organizations are required to formulate neutral policies that would ensure there is no discrimination within the workplaces. These can also help companies to develop affirmative plans for action. However, these must be done with a lot of care to avoid ‘reverse discrimination'. The affirmative actions are essential in the elimination of barriers that exist in attempting to avoid racial or ethnic discriminations.
The act also enhances workplace diversity by ensuring discrimination is combated (Patrick & Kumar 2012). Workplace diversity assists organizations in maintaining a motivated workforce. When the workforce is diverse, it acts as a motivating factor. The introduction of new faces into the organization helps in the injection of new blood. These new faces motivate other employees by the introduction of fresh ideas. Diversity also improves the image of a given organization. Through this, the organization can attract more clients. When additional customers are attracted, the productivity of the organization rises.
Apart from affecting the structures of the organization, the Equality Act has a potential of changing the culture of a given organization. When several new issues are introduced into an organization, the culture can be diluted. This may lead to the emergence of fresh cultures within the organization. The new cultures may affect the employees regarding productivity. It can take long for the employees to adapt to the new cultures. Other businesses, as well as employees, may not be able to adapt to the new systems leading to their natural demise. When an organization’s culture changes, its productivity is affected positively or negatively. In most cases, there is often a decline in productivity.
The Act bars employers from asking potential employees questions concerning their health. This enables employees to hide crucial information that would be essential to the employer. In such cases, the employee may not work to the best of his or her ability when given tasks that are seemingly difficult (Thompson, 2016). For instance, an employee with musculoskeletal disorders may not perform well in the construction industry. Within the industry, workers lift heavy loads. These heavy loads are inappropriate for individuals with musculoskeletal disorders (Weller, Purdam, Ghanea, & Cheruvallil-Contractor 2013). Additionally, when employees hide such crucial information, the organization loses valuable time concerning productivity due to sick leaves.
Lawsuits against employers are set to rise due to the enactment of this Act. The act provides for the protection of several characteristics. When more characteristics are protected, the number of suits also increases. Since the introduction of Equality Act, the lawsuits against potential employers or employers have increased. The lawsuits can affect the financial status as well as the reputation of an organization.
For effective implementation of the Equality Act, there are certain issues that must be put in place. Most employers do not understand the implication of the Act. It is crucial to conduct a program to ensure that they are informed of these implications. Additionally, awareness creation among the employees is an essential element in the successful implementation of the Act. There is a need to demystify the Act. The employers feel that the Act is skewed too much towards the employees than the employers. They believe the main aim of the Act is to protect the employees while putting stringent measures on the employers. For that reason, it is significant for the government to carry out a massive campaign on the implications of the Equality Act.
The companies can implement certain issues to ensure they are compliant with the Equality Act 2010. It is essential for the organizations to take affirmative action. For instance, treating a physically challenged individual more favourably than an un-disabled would enable a company to employ him or her. Through positive discrimination, the company can reach its target of diversity in its work force. Hiring employees from groups that are underrepresented as long as they qualify is also an essential tool in ensuring compliance. The companies need to formulate anti-discriminatory policies to govern the implementation of the Act. These policies must have mechanisms for punishing those involved in discriminatory acts. This would also enable employees to live in harmony.
In summary, the Equality Act has positive and negative effects on an organization. It can improve the welfare of the employees and eases the work of the employers. However, most employers do not recognize the positive effects of the act. This act has also improved the understanding and interpretation of discrimination laws.
List of References
Butlin, S.F., 2011. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Does the Equality Act 2010 Measure up to UK International Commitments? Industrial Law Journal, 40 (4), 428-438.
Fredman, S., 2011. Discrimination law, Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford.
Gray, C.B., 2013. The philosophy of law: an encyclopaedia (Vol. 1743), Routledge, London.
Hepple, B., 2011. The new single Equality Act in Britain. The Equal Rights Review, 5, 11-24.
Patrick, H.A. and Kumar, V.R., 2012. Managing Workplace Diversity. Sage Open, 2(2), 1-15
Thompson, N., 2016. Anti-discriminatory practice: Equality, diversity and social justice, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Warner’s Solicitors, 2016. Discrimination by Association. Warners-solicitors, Available from: https://www.warners-solicitors.co.uk/article/1576/discrimination-Association [4 Jul. 2016].
Weller, P., Purdam, K., Ghanea, N. & Cheruvallil-Contractor, S., 2013. Religion or belief, discrimination and equality: Britain in global contexts. A&C Black, Edinburgh.
