- Editorial: Where’s AL gone?
- Caste Discrimination to be made unlawful
- Viewed with suspicion: The human cost of Stop and Search
- Government backs off repeal of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s General Duty
- Tribunal case re-emphasises legal protection against discrimination based on an “association” with a disabled person
- The menopause – the last workplace taboo?
- ECU announces pilots of schemes to bring about systemic change to improve equality
- EHRC guidance to help employers support staff experiencing domestic abuse 7
- ‘Sex and Power 2013: Who Runs Britain?’
- Racial harassment claim by Jewish teacher over union’s Israel-Palestine policies fails
- Has Anti-Semitism in Europe become acceptable again
- ‘Illegal immigrant’ no more? How language changes and labels
- Employing older workers: an employer’s guide to today’s multi-generational workforce
- EHRC Research Reports and Reading Lists
- Stonewall Healthcare Equality Index 2013
Editorial: Where’s AL gone?
EQUALITY? or EQUITY?
I
recently came across the above cartoon and I thought it was really useful as
way of visualising equality in different ways. As someone who has been involved
in equality and diversity issues over many years I still find it difficult
sometimes to verbally explain that the word “equality” carries different
meanings in different contexts and sometimes these different meaning can seem
contradictory.
The
first picture, for example, shows an example of what might be described as formal
equality: everyone is being treated “the same” (equally) as they are all
standing on the same sized box. If all the people are “the same” (in this case
terms of height) this would be a good thing – it would be wrong and
discriminatory if the boxes were of a different
height and this resulted in some suffering a detriment as consequence.
The law calls
this direct discrimination: less
favourable treatment on grounds of (in this case) height. But remember “height”
is not a protected characteristic
under the Equality Act, so it would not be illegal! It’s just an example, to
illustrate a point, right. However if the detriment was caused with reference
to race, or gender or disability or sexual orientation etc., (a “protected
characteristic”) then it would be
illegal.
But as
the children in the cartoon are different
in terms of height, treating them the same (“equally”), as the cartoon
illustrates, results in discrimination against the smallest! So treating people
“the same” or “equally”, when people are not “the same”, can result in
discrimination. The law describes this form of discrimination as indirect discrimination: a provision,
criteria or practice (in this case the size of the boxes they are standing on)
which applies equally to all (it’s the same size box), but puts someone (the
smallest) at a particular disadvantage because of a characteristic they do not
share with others (in this case smaller height).
When
indirect discrimination is identified (as the cartoon does) the solution to
solving or eliminating the discrimination does not lie in treating everyone the same (this has actually created
the discrimination), but rather treating different people in different
situations differently. In the cartoon the solution is to give different
sized boxes to differently sized children to put them in the same situation to
see the match (an equitable outcome!). Formal equality is thereby
transformed into substantive equality or equity, where it’s the outcome that becomes important, not the
process (of providing same-size boxes).
I just
have one tiny gripe with the cartoon. The outcome could have been achieved not by providing different sized
children with differently sized boxes, which is complicated, expensive and
focuses on the individual size of each child. But rather by taking down the fence (or not building it in the first place),
which is the real barrier to full
equality for all! Without the fence, irrespective of size, all can now see the
match. Quite a radical solution, but with the benefit of simplicity and (if it
had not been built in the first place) might have saved a great deal of money!
Sometimes the simple solutions are the best!!
This latter
point illustrates the difference between (in the case of disability) the medical or individualised model of looking at solutions to inequality, as
opposed to the societal model of
inequality favoured by disabled people themselves – where the real social barriers to full participation, involvement and equality are identified and removed; or better still not created in the
first place.
Amazing
what a simple set of cartoons can do...
Paul
Crofts
Caste Discrimination to be made unlawful
Vince Cable the Business
Secretary announced on Monday April 22 2013 that the government intends to make
caste discrimination unlawful by extending the definition of “race” to include
it in the Equality Act 2010. This represents a bit of a volte-face for the
government as it had previous argued that it did not think it was necessary to
extend protection in this area. However, after successive votes in the House of
Lords to extend protection to the estimated 400,000 Dalits (or “untouchables”)
resident in the UK, the government has changed its mind. In March the House of Lords passed an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform Bill to add caste to anti-discrimination laws.
Viewed with suspicion: The human cost of Stop and Search
The numbers are stark — data shows that black people are
stopped and searched at seven times
the rate of white people. Asians are stopped at twice the rate of whites. But
what do the statistics mean in terms of people's lives?
A new report,
portrait series and film look at some of the personal
stories behind the numbers.
StopWatch and
the Open
Society Justice Initiative conducted interviews with nine people
from across England whose lives have been directly affected by stop and search.
They are a small sample, but their stories echo those repeated day after day in
the lives of ordinary people who happen to fit the stereotypes that might lead
to a stop and search. To provide context for these stories, the accompanying
report draws on police and survey data to provide a clear picture of how stop
and search is used and the unseen toll it takes.
Source: StopWatch
Government backs off repeal of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s General Duty
Following a vote in the House of Lords on 4th March 2013 the Government announced on
April 22 that it does not intend to real the EHRC general equality duty. Peers
had previously voted 217-166 in support of Baroness Jane Campbell’s amendment
to s57 of the Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform Bill, opposing the government’s planned repeal of the
Equality and Human Rights Commission’s General
Duty.
In addition to Baroness
Campbell’s powerful speech a
range of impassioned interventions came from all sides of the House including
Baroness Thornton, Baroness Lister, Baroness Hollis, Lord Lloyd, Baroness
Hussein-Ece and Lord Morris. Each pointed out the critical importance of both
aspirations and values in addition to rules and enforcement in achieving the
cultural change required to ensure that equality and human rights principles
take root in our society.
The House of Lords had made its view clear – the General
Duty should not be repealed and the Government appears to have listened
(although a more cynical view may be that they would not have mustered
sufficient support in the House of Commons to overturn it).
Tribunal case re-emphasises legal protection against discrimination based on an “association” with a disabled person
The Claimant, Rachel Price has a
degenerative disc disease and as a result was absent from work for some days
due to back pain. Her husband has leukemia.
When her husband’s condition
deteriorated, Mrs Price found it hard to concentrate at work, and was signed
off for a week by her GP as having high blood pressure. When she returned to
work, she was told by her employer that her employment was not working out and
“if I had known about your husband’s
illness I wouldn’t, no might not, have taken you on”. He then terminated
her employment with immediate effect. Mrs Price brought a claim of disability
discrimination.
The Tribunal pointed out that it
is clear from the wording of the Equality Act that it is unlawful to
discriminate “on grounds of disability – not simply or necessarily on grounds
of the Claimant’s disability”. The Equality Act 2010 was intended to extend the
prohibition on direct discrimination to associative
discrimination and Price v Action-Tec Services Ltd t/a Associated Telecom
Solutions illustrates the difference this protection makes.
This is an important case reaffirming the Equality Act
provisions relating to discrimination by association.
Source: Michael
Rubenstein presents...
The menopause – the last workplace taboo?
Approximately half of
the UK workforce (47%) is made up of women aged 50 years or older. With around
two-thirds of women aged 50 to 59 in employment, these women will be
experiencing the menopause or have been through it. The menopause is part
of the aging process. It is not a medical disease and it can have a significant
impact on psychological well-being, physical health, cognition and social
implications on the working lives of women.
Many managers are
unaware of the many physical symptoms of the menopause which might affect a
woman’s well-being at work. Menopausal symptoms most likely to affect women
include hot flushes (70% of women suffer from them for one year, 30% for five
years and 5% – 10% for 10 to 15 years), palpitations, night sweats and sleep
disturbance, fatigue, poor concentration, irritability and mood disturbance. These
working women may also have to care for frail and aging parents, look after
their own family, experience changes in health and changes in their
relationships.
The Working
through the Change study
conducted by the Trades Union Congress (2003) surveyed 500 safety
representatives on menopausal issues. Symptoms attributed to the menopause made
worse by work were hot flushes, headaches and tiredness. Workplace temperature
and poor ventilation also made symptoms worse. Employers can help to reduce the
stigma and embarrassment when women are in the company of work colleagues and
by supporting women experiencing the menopause employers can reduce
absenteeism, maximise productivity and make the workplace environment as
comfortable as possible.
To help develop a rich
and diverse working culture within the workplace here are ten top tips to help employers cultivate good working practices:
1. Raising awareness of the menopause in an occupational
setting through health promotion programmes and awareness training for
managers.
2. Organising social support within the work place. This
could include information packs, mentoring schemes and lunch time support.
3. Offer flexible working hours, job sharing, and opportunities
to work from home. Many women experience tiredness.
4. The temperature of the work environment can be an issue,
especially in refined spaces. Fans and temperature controls could be
implemented.
5. A rest room where women can relax, just to have some space.
6. Cold drinking water – many organisations do not provide
this.
7. Prioritise work life balance and maintain firm boundaries
in working life and non-working life. Adopt buffer zones so that women feel in
control more effectively. Many menopausal women experience feelings of ‘not
coping’. If work becomes an issue encourage a specific time each day so that
worries can be written down and then discarded.
8. Remain hopeful and optimistic – women experiencing the
menopause often go through different types of emotions such as anxiety and
depression. Remember these feelings do subside. Encourage women to discuss how
they feel as these feelings are very normal.
9. Become a supportive manager, women are more likely to
discuss menopausal issues with somebody they feel able to talk to. This also
encourages organisational loyalty and less absenteeism which can only be a good
thing for all companies.
These tips are based on research undertaken by Amanda
Griffiths of Nottingham University: Women’s Experience of Working through the Menopause [PDF].
ECU announces pilots of schemes to bring about systemic change to improve equality
The advisory equality group for
universities (the Equality Challenge Unit) is developing a national charter
marks to kick-start initiatives tackling race and gender inequality in
employment in higher education.
The charter marks are being
developed to help the sector address the continuing underrepresentation of
black and minority ethnic staff and the similar underrepresentation of women at
senior levels.
They are intended to instigate
long term systemic and cultural changes to tackle discrimination. Our
experiences with the Athena SWAN Charter (improving gender equality in STEMM
subjects) have shown that such a scheme can have a significant impact on
entrenched exclusionary practices and be successful in changing behaviour
within higher education institutions.
·
A race equality charter mark will focus on improving race equality
for staff, concentrating on career progression and pipeline issues.
·
A gender equality charter mark will extend the Athena SWAN scheme
to cover all disciplines.
The charter marks build on
programmes run by ECU over the past year investigating effective initiatives.
A pilot of the gender equality
charter mark has been undertaken and, subject to consulting with the sector on
the proposal, we plan to develop this further. The current Athena SWAN charter
will continue to operate as it currently stands, with a view to bring the two
together further down the line.
The challenges to gender and
race equality are different, so the charter mark for race will begin as a
small-scale pilot, but will grow incrementally.
Both schemes will be developed
in consultation with the sector and be flexible to take into account the
individual context of an institution (including size and geographical area).
David Ruebain, Chief Executive of ECU said:
‘Despite the diligent work of individual higher education institutions
and sector organisations, systemic discrimination continues to exist in higher
education. Entrenched exclusionary practices have been found to stifle the
careers of black and minority ethnic academics and support staff, and women are
also still underrepresented at senior levels.
We have worked with many institutions on initiatives to promote race and
gender equality, but these are complex, and sometimes sensitive, issues
requiring a strategic approach. It is clear that cultural and systemic changes
are necessary if we are to make any real headway on these challenges.
There is a long way to go, but the scheme has the potential to have a
significant impact and be successful in changing behaviour within
universities.’
ECU will be circulating further
details, including projected timescales and resource implications, as soon as
possible in the coming weeks.
EHRC guidance to help employers support staff experiencing domestic abuse
In April
2013, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published guidance to
help employers manage and support employees affected by domestic abuse, which
one in four women will experience at some point in their lifetime.
‘Managing
and supporting employees experiencing domestic abuse’,
developed by the EHRC and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
outlines how employers should respond if an employee is affected by domestic
abuse.
The guidance is
designed to enable employers to develop a domestic abuse workplace policy and
provides tips for managers on how to manage and support an employee
experiencing domestic abuse. These small steps can include giving an employee
time off to consult a lawyer, diverting telephone calls or providing a safe car
park space.
The guidance is
necessary because domestic abuse is a subject that managers struggle to respond
to appropriately. People experiencing domestic abuse can be subject to
disciplinary action and even lose their jobs because their behaviour, being
late for example, is misinterpreted. A domestic abuse workplace policy will
mean that skilled and experienced staff are able to retain their jobs and
feel safe and supported in the workplace.
Statistics show
that:
·
Domestic
abuse currently costs UK businesses over £1.9 billion a year
·
In the
UK, in any one year, more than 20% of employed women take time off work because
of domestic violence, and 2% lose their jobs as a direct result of the abuse
·
75% of
women that experience domestic abuse are targeted at work – from harassing
phone calls and abusive partners arriving at the office unannounced, to physical
assaults.
Ann Beynon, EHRC Board Member and Commissioner for Wales, comments:
“We are delighted to publish
this guide in partnership with the CIPD which will have huge benefits for
organisations. As Commissioner for the Equality and Human Rights Commission my
aim is that every employer benefits from taking effective action in the
workplace to ensure their staff experiencing domestic abuse feel safe and
supported at work.
“This guidance includes low
cost, common sense practical tips through to steps on developing an effective
domestic abuse workplace policy. Therefore, whether a large company or one of
the many SMEs there are steps you can take to help managers facilitate
conversations about domestic abuse and put in place support for employees."
‘Sex and Power 2013: Who Runs Britain?’
The
report examines the presence – or lack thereof – of women in politically
powerful positions in politics and other spheres of public life in the UK
today, including the police, the education sector, the arts and the world of
finance. It then goes on to consider the implications of a country largely
governed by men, and makes a series of recommendations for tackling the dearth
of women in influential positions.
Key
findings included:
- just 22.5 percent of MPs are women, 21.7 percent of
peers and 17.4 percent of the Cabinet. Women make up 13.3 percent of
elected mayors and 14.6 percent of Police and Crime Commissioners.
- Britain is falling down the global league table when it
comes to the representation of women in politics, as other countries move
forward faster: in 2001 we were ranked 33 out of 190 countries, but by the
end of 2012 we had fallen to 60th[1] place.
- women are similarly ‘missing’ in many other spheres of
public life: just 36.4 percent of public appointments are women, 13.6
percent of the senior judiciary and 5 percent of Editors of national daily
newspapers.
- women’s absence is particularly marked in finance and
economy: there are no women at all on the Bank of England Monetary Policy
Committee; women hold just 11.1 percent of UK Bank Chief Executive
positions, 17.3 percent of FTSE 100 Director positions and make up just
15.1 percent of members of Local Economic Partnerships.
The
report explores the impact of this dearth of women at the top tables of public
life, and concludes that:
- The lack of diversity in public life weakens democracy
and public confidence in it;
- Women make a positive difference to actual
decision-making itself; excluding them from politics and other areas of
public life means missing out on the substantial benefits greater
involvement of women would bring, while also wasting the huge investment
made in women and girls through the education system and beyond
- A more diverse body politic with a wider spread of
expertise and reflecting the life experience of both halves of the human
race would be better placed to lead us through the complex times that face
us.
- Real, committed and targetted action is required; failure
to do so means the UK will continue to ‘drift’.
Source:
Equality
& Diversity Forum
Racial harassment claim by Jewish teacher over union’s Israel-Palestine policies fails
In this case, a member of the
Union brought various claims of harassment related to his “race, religion or
belief” under section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. The wide ranging allegations made by the Claimant arose, in
essence, from the way in which Union had handled the Israel/Palestine debate.
For example, claims arose from motions debated at the Union’s congress on
proposals for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions and related questions.
The Claimant alleged that the Union was guilty of “institutional anti-Semitism”
which he alleged constituted harassment of him as a Jewish member of the Union.
The
Tribunal described the litigation as being “gargantuan” in scale. It heard from
34 witnesses including academics and MPs. The hearing lasted 20 days and
required 23 hearing bundles.
Ultimately,
in an extremely robust decision, the Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s
allegations in their entirety. It found them to be “manifestly unmeritorious” and an “impermissible attempt to achieve political end by litigious means”.
The Tribunal also expressed themselves as being worried by the implications of
the claim. They sensed that underlying the litigation was a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance
and freedom of expression”. Of particular interest was the way in which the
Tribunal dealt with issues of legal principle at heart of the claim.
Source: Human
Rights Blog
Has Anti-Semitism in Europe become acceptable again
This video,
produced by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) as part of its Recycling
Hate series, explores the issue of anti-Semitism in Europe
Source: ENAR
‘Illegal immigrant’ no more? How language changes and can label people
The American Associated
Press (AP) Stylebook is making some changes in how they describe people
living in a country illegally. These changes are interesting because they
reflects how use of language can change over time and also emphasises accuracy
of reporting over emotive phases which can “label” and stereotype people,
rather than focusing on unacceptable actions or behaviour.
AP’s Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen
Carroll explained the thinking behind the decision:
The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the
use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal”
should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country
illegally.
Why did we make the change? The discussions on this topic have been
wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they
led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support
from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of
documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)
Those discussions continued even after AP affirmed (at that time) “illegal immigrant” as the best use, for
two reasons. A number of people felt that “illegal immigrant” was the best
choice at the time. They also believed the always-evolving English language
might soon yield a different choice and we should stay in the conversation.
Also, we had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels. The new section on mental health issues argues for using
credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was “diagnosed
with schizophrenia” instead of schizophrenic, for example.
And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us
back to “illegal immigrant” again.
We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance.
So we have.
Is this the best way to describe someone in a country without
permission? We believe that it is for now. We also believe more evolution is
likely down the road.
Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at
first. But while labels may be more facile, they are not accurate...
Change is a part of AP Style because the English language is constantly
evolving, enriched by new words, phrases and uses. Our goal always is to use
the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader
anywhere.
The updated entry is being added immediately to the AP Stylebook Online and
Manual de Estilo Online de la AP, the new Spanish-language Stylebook. It
also will appear in the new print edition and Stylebook Mobile, coming out later in the spring. It reads
as follows:
illegal immigration: Entering or residing in a country in
violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the
story, us illegal only to
refer to an action, not a person: illegal
immigration, but not illegal
immigrant.
Acceptable variations include living
in or entering a country
illegally or without legal
permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without
attribution. Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country
illegally and from where.
Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?
People who were brought into the country as children should not be
described as having immigrated illegally...
Discrimination arising from disability
Jamieson v Governing Body of Chorlton High School [2013] EqLR 429
Unlike direct
discrimination, discrimination arising from
disability can be
justified as proportionate. In this
case the Claimant teacher was dismissed for taking a 16-year-old former pupil
to a concert and bringing her home at 3am in an intoxicated state. He produced
medical evidence that his judgment was impaired by then-undiagnosed bipolar
affective disorder and/or the effects of medication he was taking for
depression.
On that basis, the
Tribunal founds that the predominant reason for the Claimant’s behaviour was
his disability.
Although the school
acted in accordance with the legitimate aims of safeguarding children and
protecting its reputation, the Tribunal concludes that dismissal was not
proportionate in that there had been no assessment of the risk that such
behaviour would be repeated. The Tribunal also concluded that to dismiss the Claimant
for his behaviour when it was materially affected by his disability was not “proportionate to address any perceived
threat to reputation”.
Source: Michael
Rubenstein presents...
Employing older workers: an employer’s guide to today’s multi-generational workforce
This guide provides answers to employer questions about recruitment,
performance, succession management, retention and transfer of skills, bringing
on younger workers and retirement. It offers good practice solutions tried and
tested by employers of various sectors and sizes.
The accompanying collection of over 30 case studies provides real life examples,
showing how employers of various sectors and sizes have made the best of the
opportunities, and effectively managed the issues presented by an ageing
workforce. They offer practical examples and transferable experience.
EHRC Research Reports and Reading Lists
The
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) research team circulated updated
information about EHRC research in the March 2013 research database newsletter.
To subscribe to the Research Database or request PDFs or printed
copies of research reports please email research@equalityhumanrights.com
Since
September 2009, each of these newsletters has included a reading list prepared
by the EHRC’s Librarian on a particular equality theme. The latest reading list
contains key books and journal articles on race issues. All reading lists are
available HERE.
Source:
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Stonewall Healthcare Equality Index 2013
The
Healthcare
Equality Index 2013 is Stonewall’s guide to the
top healthcare organisations who have committed themselves
to improving the health of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. The Top Ten
healthcare organisations in England were:
1. Sussex
Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
2. Liverpool
Community Health NHS Trust
3. London
Ambulance Service NHS Trust
4. St Andrews
Healthcare Charitable Trust
5. Central and
North West London NHS Foundation Trust
6. Mersey Care
NHS Trust
7. Barts
Health NHS Trust
8. Royal
Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust
9. Brighton
and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust
10. County
Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
*******
