Fair treatment of workers Essay

No matter their age, sex, physical ability, civil partnership or marriage, religion, or sexual orientation, all employees are entitled to an equitable treatment process at work. (Lawsociety.org.uk, 2012). In addition to guaranteeing the security of the aforementioned factors, the Equality Act of 2010 also offers legal recourse in the event that an employer or other party interferes with or violates the laws that protect equality in the workplace. (Morrishsolicitors.com, n.d.). This report’s investigation into employee rights and privileges in the workplace will center on Scenario B, which brings up three concerns regarding a small number of workers of British Telenet Limited (“Telenet”).; a company dealing in the provision of internet service.

Scenario B raises three issues. The first question concerns an elderly Asian woman by the name Ade. She works for British Telenet Limited as a team leader with some of her subordinates being Phil and Roy. In this case, a critical legal issue emerges about how Phil and Roy think and treat Ade. For instance, Ade feels discriminated on account of her being a senior woman when her subordinates tease her by stating that she should be taking care of her husband or grandchildren instead of being a team leader in a white-dominated workplace. As well, she feels harassed when Roy engages in an unacceptable conduct by thinking that as an Asian citizen, she should not hold a senior position as being a team leader, but should instead be a junior member, which amounts to harassment on account of race. These acts by Phil and Roy can be termed as a violation in the workplace based on the gender and the race of Ade. In the light of this, Ade can bring a claim about harassment under the rules of the Equality Act 2010.

The second issue concerns Suzy; a web services department employee who is dismissed on the allegation that she might be troublesome after she attempts to report the behavior of some members of her new department to the line manager. Ideally, failing to perform duties is unacceptable, and therefore, Suzy’s action is acceptable. However, the line manager’s decision to dismiss Suzy for reporting the beheading videos is illegal, and thus, Suzy can bring a claim about her action, which amounts to the discrimination of an office holder for a protected Act as provided in section 49 of the Equality Act 2010.

Finally, the last issue concerns Farzana who had been recruited under the company’s graduate recruitment scheme. Notably, the company maintains a policy that provides for the recruitment and subsequent rise of newly employed graduates to become senior executives for only those that are aged between twenty-five and thirty years. However, Farzana does not succeed in getting the promotion, presumably because of other factors other than age. Therefore, Farzana can file a claim against sexual discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 for the failure of the company to offer her a promotion since there may be specific issues that reveal sexual discrimination.

Therefore, this report will address the issues related to the three scenarios, by applying the specific rules and supporting cases for each of the three issues raised in scenario B.

What are the rules that apply to the scenario?

With the three issues raised in scenario B, there are a few rules and provisions that apply to provide solutions through a legal process. Understandably, equality law and employment law contain specific provisions that regulate the relationship between employees and their employers in the workplace concerning such matters as equal opportunity for all, fair treatment, and discrimination, (Gov.uk, 2013). In this section, this study will focus on the specific rules that apply to each of the three issues concerning the provisions and regulations given in employment and equality laws.

a. Can Ade bring a claim in harassment under the Equality Act 2010?

Ade is an elderly Asian woman working as a team leader at British Telenet Limited. Her subordinates are presumably citizens of the United Kingdom. In the course of their duties, they regularly tease Ade by her age and race. In this case, their actions portray discrimination since they profile Ade on the basis of her race and age; which are protected by the Equality Act 2010. The Act covers all British citizens and non-citizens working and living in Britain. It provides a series of laws and legislation that protect the aforementioned people from the characteristics that portray specific acts of discrimination and harassment.

As such, the Equality Act 2010 (EA) s.26 (1) states “A person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.” As well, the Equality Act 2010 (EA) s.26 (5) states ”The relevant protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.” The Equality Act 2010 describes harassment as one form of discrimination, which is common in workplaces, (Acas.org.uk, n.d.). In the light of this, the two laws give the specific provisions of the UK law that deal with the rights of employed persons working in the nation concerning their ages and race affiliations.

Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 paints Phil and Rory as being discriminative to Ade because they engage in an unacceptable behavior when they openly tease her for her age and race, which are two relevant characteristics that are protected by the law under subsection 5 of section 26 in the Equality Act 2010. Since Ade is an old and Asian woman, her rights to equality are guaranteed and protected by the Equality Act 2010, and therefore, she has the right to take a claim in harassment under the same law seeking for legal remedies from Phil and Rory.

b. Can Suzy bring a claim in relation to her reporting the beheading videos?

In this issue, Suzy, a web services department employee, is dismissed on the allegation that she might be troublesome after she attempts to report the behavior of some members of her new department to the line manager. Ideally, every worker has a responsibility to work in accordance with the terms of their contract with their employer. As such, Suzy can take a claim for dismissal that amounts to victimization in relation to her reporting the beheading videos, (Acas.org.uk, n.d.).

The Equality Act 2010 (EA) s.27 (1) states ”A person (A) victimizes another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because B does a protected act, or A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.” This law implies that victimization takes place whenever one person, presumably an employer or a senior staff worker, subjects another person, in this case, a junior worker, to a situation in which the junior employee feels humiliated or hurt. According to citizenadvice.org.uk (n.d.), victimization occurs if one person treats another badly or subjects him or her to a detriment such as a dismissal.

In the light of this, reporting the beheading videos is acceptable and protected by the law since the workers taking part in watching the videos are breaching their terms of engagement with their employer. However, by dismissing Suzy on thinking that she is troublesome for her act of reporting the beheading videos amounts to the violation of the Equality Act 2010 as it applies to employment and equality in the workplace.

c. Can Farzana claim sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010?

In this last issue, Telenet fails to promote Farzana who had been recruited under the company’s graduate recruitment scheme. Ideally, the company maintains a policy that provides for the recruitment and subsequent rise of newly employed graduates to become senior executives if they are aged between twenty-five and thirty years. However, Farzana does not succeed in getting the promotion, presumably because of other factors other than age. Therefore, her claim for sex discrimination may be valid if the actions leading to the discrimination are visibly apparent.

The Equality Act 2010 (EA) s.39 (2) (b) states ”An employer must not discriminate against an employee of A’s (B) in the way A affords B access, or by not affording B access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training or for receiving any other benefit, facility or service.” The legislation implies that despite the discrimination on the basis of any other protected characteristic, Telenet must not violate the existing law by failing to promote Farzana to become a senior executive officer. As well, the Equality Act 2010 (EA) s.13 (6)(a) states ”If the protected characteristic is sex, less favorable treatment of a woman includes less favorable treatment of her because she is breastfeeding.”

According to this legislation, the affected employee can claim sex discrimination if the employer failed to exercise equality on account of the affected person being in a breastfeeding activity. In the light of this, it is agreeable that Telenet violated the Equality Act 2010 by failing to offer Farzana an equal opportunity in promotions. Therefore, Farzana can claim sex discrimination under the provisions granted by the Equity Act 2010.

Application of supporting cases to the issues presented in your specific scenario.

Laws are made to guide the citizens of a specific jurisdiction in conducting their duties with strict adherence to the provisions contained therein in the legislation, (Gov.uk, n.d.). Countries make laws that fit their governance and administration systems with the goal of ensuring equality for all people. Therefore, it is the mandatory duty of every person to abide by these laws failure to which violations will arise attracting strict legal implications. In the light of this, there have been various cases whereby the Equality Act of 2010 has been applied to make judgments. In this case, discrimination in the workplace concerning issues of harassment, victimization or sexual discrimination as illustrated in scenario B can lead to a legal process, (Equalityhumanrights.com, n.d.). On that note, following are a few supporting cases that apply to the issues above regarding discrimination in the workplace.

a. Can Ade bring a claim in harassment under the Equality Act 2010?

Harassment in the workplace on account of age and race is a violation of the Equality Act 2010, (Acas.org.uk, n.d.). By supporting this assertion, it was identified in Homer (2012) that discriminating employees by their age violates the Equality law, and as well, it amounts to harassment. Understandably, the Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police case involved a situation whereby the appellant filed a claim against indirect age discrimination at his place of work. The facts underlying this case were that Homer felt discriminated after a change in rules that made it mandatory for him to possess a law degree or have exceptional experience so that he could rise to a third pay grade at the age of sixty-two years. As a result, his business partners denied him entry causing his claim about discrimination by age. The Employment Tribunal ruled in Homer’s favor.

However, the EAT overturned the tribunal’s ruling asserting that it was baseless to think of any specific disadvantage for any person between sixty and sixty-five years old since by principle it could be increasingly difficult getting a degree for people at that age bracket. As such, Homer’s financial consequences were age-specific as opposed to age discrimination. As well, the appeals court upheld this decision arguing that Homer’s disadvantage was directly linked to his old age as opposed to age discrimination. Homer’s case applies in Ade’s scenario because despite being an old lady, the Equality law 2010 guarantees her protection against age discrimination and harassment in the same way that it could have worked in Homer’s case had he been discriminated.

As well, Rory’s thinking that non-white people should hold lower positions in workplaces amounts to racial discrimination, which is protected by the Equality Law 2010. For instance, it was argued in Hounga (2014) that the claims of race discrimination override doctrines of illegality implying that illegal immigrants such as Hounga can enjoy their employment rights as opposed to being deprived of their basic human rights. In the Hounga v Allen and Another case, Miss Hounga had been a Nigerian national residing in England. Ideally, Allen’s family had made arrangements for her to move to England by presenting unoriginal identity documents to UK immigration authorities to get a visitor’s visa valid for half a year. Interestingly, Hounga extended her stay in England for eighteen months and during this period she worked for Mrs. Allen by looking after her children. After some time, Allen dismissed her from the employment and evicted her from their home; an act that formed the basis of the Hounda’s claim of racial discrimination. However, the appeals tribunal set aside the initial ruling about the illegality of the employment contract with Allen. In this case, therefore, other matters notwithstanding, it is evident that discrimination on account of race was unlawful and prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. In Hounda’s case, the illegality of her employment status considering her illegal presence in England overruled her claims for racial discrimination, (Bogg, 2014). However, applying the same concepts in Ade’s scenario except for the issue of illegality will guarantee the application of the Equality Act 2010 in dealing with racial discrimination in the workplace.

b. Can Suzy bring a claim in relation to her reporting the beheading videos?

Suzy’s sudden dismissal as a result of reporting the beheading videos to the line manager contravenes the provisions against victimization as guaranteed in the Equality Act 2010. The violation in the workplace is unacceptable and should there be a claim in relation to such behavior; the claimant stands to receive an award from the respondent. To support this assertion, it was defined in Jessemy (2014) that post-termination victimization is an unlawful conduct. Though the facts of the case differ with Suzy’s immediate scenario, it was held that victimization of any form to employees and former employees is not acceptable.

Ideally, Jessemy’s case was defined in an appeals court in which the appeal judges departed from an initial decision made by the EAT in which the claimant had initially filed a claim for an unfair dismissal after his employer; Rowstock Ltd terminated his contract, (Gilbert, 2016). The appeal court held that the case was an issue of pure law, and by applying the Equality Law Act 2010, the Employment Tribunal and the EAT’s decisions failed. The reason behind this holding is that the respondent subjected Jessemy to detriment, that is, weak reference since the claimant had claimed against age discrimination and that the respondent had unfairly dismissed him.

Just like Suzy’s issue, Jessemy’s case applied the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 that not only outlines the protected characteristics but also gives an explanation of what prohibited conducted in the workplace means in reference to direct or indirect discrimination. Unlike with other acts, the Equality Act 2010 identifies discrimination, harassment and victimization separately to illustrate prohibited conduct, (Legislation.gov.uk, n.d.). Therefore, the application of the Equality Act 2010 to Jessemy’s case sets a strong precedence to Suzy’s issue owing to the reported discrimination and victimization form her employer.

c. Can Farzana claim sex discrimination under the Equality Act 2010?

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits sexual discrimination in the workplace. Though it is unclear of the facts underlying Farzana’s issue, her claim for sex discrimination is valid under the Act. For instance, it was argued in Ms. C Howard (2014) that discrimination on account of race and gender is unlawful since it contravenes the provisions of the Equality Law 2010. Ideally, the court found that the Metropolitan Police Service directly discriminated against Ms. Howard on account of her race and gender. As well, the panel found that the then acting inspector Dave Kelly’s actions were detrimental to the claimant.

The determination of the facts underlying Howard’s case applied the Equality Law Act 2010 concerning race and sex. For instance, the actions of the police discriminated Howard on specific protected characteristics that include gender and race concerning sections 13, 26 and 27 of the law. In essence, Ms. Howard had been the only black woman serving in the Metropolitan police unit that was headed by Al Kelly. Kelly often singled her out and formed a negative perception of her by doubting her honesty and ability; a view that he could not explain. The facts of the case lie in the department’s unfavorable treatment to Howard who was a black woman serving in a presumably white male-dominated security department. As such, the tribunal was convinced that Howard’s race and gender were the primary issues that influenced Al Kelly’s discriminative approaches. The Howard case takes two approaches to addressing the issue of discrimination on the accounts of race and sex. Farzana’s issue considers discrimination on account of gender, which the European prohibits, (Equality law.eu, n.d.). As such, the provisions of the law as applied in the Howard case can form the legal basis for determining Farzana’s claim if sexual discrimination occurred.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Equality Act 2010 guarantees every worker a fair treatment process in their workplaces regardless of their age, sex, disability, marriage, pregnancy, and maternity or gender reassignment. Notably, the Equality Act 2010 gives specific legal provisions that not only guarantee the protection of the characteristics above but also provides remedies in cases where the employer contravenes any of the rules. As well, the Act covers all citizens and/or other people that are currently operating their businesses or offering their services in England. In the light of this, Ade, Suzy, and Farzana present three distinct issues that form claims with a legal basis protesting against the possible contravention of the Equality Act 2010.

The issues focus on discrimination on account of age, race, employment, and sex, which are all protected by the aforementioned law. In the light of this, I would advise British Telenet Limited to immediately adopt an organizational policy that advocates for strict disciplinary measures for any employee against whom a discrimination allegation is raised. As well, I would recommend that Telenet embrace an organizational structure and culture that focuses on embracing diversity, competency, social relationships and cooperation as opposed to being discriminative to avoid similar cases in the future. Violations in the workplace require to be addressed with the seriousness it deserves.

References

Acas.org.uk (n.d.). Age discrimination. [online] Acas.org.uk. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1841 [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Acas.org.uk (n.d.). Sex discrimination. [online] Acas.org.uk. Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1814 [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

Acas.org.uk (n.d.). The Equality Act 2010 — guidance for employers. Acas.org.uk, pp.2-6.

Bogg, A. (2014). Hounga v Allen: Trojan Horse Comes to the Rescue of ‘Illegal’ Migrants. [online] Ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk. Available at: http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/hounga-v-allen-trojan-horse-comes-to-the-rescue-of-illegal-migrants/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Citizensadvice.org.uk (n.d.). Victimisation. [online] Citizensadvice.org.uk. Available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/victimisation/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

Equality Act.26.

Equality Act.27.

Equality Act.39.

Equality Act.13.

Equalitylaw.eu (n.d.). Key EU directives in gender equality and non-discrimination. [online] Equalitylaw.eu. Available at: http://www.equalitylaw.eu/legal-developments/16-law/76-key-eu-directives-in-gender-equality-and-non-discrimination [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Equalityhumanrights.com. Equality Act FAQs. Equalityhumanrights.com. Retrieved 10 November 2017, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/equality-act-faqs

Gilbert, D. (2016). Post termination victimisation update - Rowstock Ltd v Jessemey Vs Onu v Akwiwu & Anor. [online] Pumpcourtchambers.com. Available at: http://www.pumpcourtchambers.com/blog/post-termination-victimisation-update-rowstock-ltd-v-jessemey-vs-onu-v-akwiwu-anor [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Gov.uk. (2013). Equality Act 2010: guidance. Gov.uk. Retrieved 10 November 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance

Gov.uk. Law and the justice system. Gov.uk. Retrieved 10 November 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/law-and-the-justice-system

Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012]UKSC 15 (The Supreme Court), p.2.

Hounga v Allen and another [2014]UKSC 47 (The Supreme Court), p.1.

Lawsociety.org.uk (2012). Equality Act 2010 - The Law Society. [online] Lawsociety.org.uk. Available at: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/equality-act-2010/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

Legislation.gov.uk. Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes. Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 November 2017, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes

Morrishsolicitors.com. Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Morrishsolicitors.com. Retrieved 10 November 2017, from https://www.morrishsolicitors.com/wp-content/uploads/Discrimination-under-the-Equality-Act-2010.pdf

Ms C Howard v Metropolitan Police Station [2014]ET (Employment Tribunals), p.1.