Discrimination in Employment Law

Section A 

Q4. Associative Discrimination 

In associative discrimination, a person is handled in a less favorable way than how others with protected characteristics would be treated (Equality and Human Right Commission, 2017) and (Hand, 2011, 2013, 2016). The discrimination results from an individual’s association with another individual who possesses protected characteristics like sex and sexual orientation, belief or religion, race, gender reassignment, disability, age, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy, and maternity (Honigmann, 2012, 18). In associative discrimination, treating a disabled person more favorably than others is lawful. Furthermore, it involves discrimination by perspective, like in a case where an individual perceived to possess the protected characteristic does not hold it (Lawson, 2011). Besides, it includes cases an individual is treated less favorably because of a protected characteristic they are known not to possess. Except in age discrimination cases, associative discrimination hard to justify. 

Q5. Discrimination and Harassment Policy 

Any institution, individual, public authority, company, or employer is vicariously accountable for their agents’ or workers' undertakings while performing their work duties even if the employer was not aware of the undertaking or had not given permission as described in (s.9) of Equality Act 2010 (Wintemute, 2016, 387). Persons found guilty of harassing or discriminating against others are held personally accountable if the employer's vicarious accountability is defensible in that he or she took all the reasonably practical steps to stop the employee from performing the actions described in Equality Act 2010 (s.109)(4) (Bell, 2011). For that reason, employers must have a policy on harassment and discrimination because it prevents employees from discriminating or harassing others as it can be used against them. Also, suppose the employees are either harassed or discriminated against outside the workplace at work-related events. In that case, the employer can also be held accountable if he or she did not intervene. Nonetheless, employers need to make the policy know to the employees and provide them with equal training opportunities. They should also review the policy as appropriate and effectively deal with employee complaints. 

Section B 

Equality is about recognizing everyone's differences yet handling everyone with equal echelons of respect while allowing them to have equal access to facilities and services, goods, training, and education and opportunities. On the other hand, diversity involves valuing, respecting, recognizing, and drawing on the differences’ positive aspects. As such, it is critical to treat everyone equally regardless of their sex and sexual orientation, belief or religion, race, gender reassignment, disability, age, marriage, and civil partnership, or pregnancy and maternity in any environment. Workers are covered against harassment and discrimination by the Equality Act 2010 (Butler, 2016). The act also states that employers are liable for discrimination or harassment of their workers by third parties. 

Clive experienced direct third-party discrimination from the residents of Oak-Lodge care home based on his learning disability and his peculiar speaking, which is against Equality Act 2010 (s. 40) (Hepple, 2010, 11). He also experienced direct discrimination from the home’s director, who stated that he should not have been a volunteer in the home, a statement instigated by Clive’s disability and barred by Equality Act 2010 (s. 15) (Wintemute, 2016, 387). On the other hand, Emma experienced associative discrimination (Lockwood, Henderson and Thornicroft, 2012, 182) from one of the residents who reported her as a bully for defending Clive. Her imminent dismissal was also unjustified as the director asserted that the home should be seen to act in the residents’ favor indicating that all the discriminatory and harassment incidents by the residents should be given a free pass. Emma’s association with Clive resulted in her predicaments indicating that she was experiencing associative discrimination from the director, which is barred by Equality Act 2010 (s. 9) (Fraser Butlin, 2011, 428). While the employers are supposed to serve the duties of contractual confidence and trust or their mutual obligations of care in cases of harassment of their employees by third parties, the director did not intervene to end the harassment but instead decided to force the manager to dismiss Emma and end Clive’s volunteering. 

As an Oak-Lodge employee, Emma was automatically covered by the Equality Act 2010, but Clive was not directly covered because the law does not cover volunteers the same way it does to paid employees (Wadham, 2010). Nonetheless, Equality Act 2010 relates to individuals or institutions offering services, yet offering to be a volunteer can be perceived as a service (Waughray and Dhanda, 2016, 177) and (Hand, Davis Barker, 2015, 3). Therefore, Clive was indirectly covered by the Equality Act 2010 where it asserts that a person has a legal contract to perform a task regardless of the contract (Wintemute, 2016, 387). He could also be covered by the act under work placements such as an internship or vocational training to achieve practical work experience. He could also be covered under public officers (EqA 2010, ss 50-52) or special constables (EqA 2010, ss 42-43) protection. Clive could also be covered under (S. 39) of Equality Act 2010, where an organization's volunteer individuals to evaluate another person’s appropriateness to be a worker in the setting are protected (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2017). Therefore Emma had a dismissal right. Furthermore, under the Equality Act 2010, Emma and Clive could bring a claim against Oak-lodge. 

References 

Bell, M., 2011. British developments in non-discrimination law: The Equality Act. Available at SSRN 2348038 . 

Butler, M., 2016. Equality and anti-discrimination law: the Equality Act 2010 and other anti- discrimination protections . Spiramus Press Ltd. 

Equality and Human Right Commission. 2017. Handbook for advisors. Equality Act 2010. Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_act_2010_handbook _for_advisorsweb.pdf 

Fraser Butlin, S. (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. 

Hand, J., 2013. Employer’s Liability for Third-Party Harassment: An ‘Unworkable’and Superfluous Provision? 

Hand, J., 2016. An analysis of aspects of the Equality Act 2010 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth). 

Hand, J., Davis, B. and Barker, C., 2015. The British Equality Act 2010 and the foundations of legal knowledge. Commonwealth Law Bulletin , 41 (1), pp.3-28. 

Hepple, B., 2010. The new single equality act in Britain. The Equal Rights Review , 5 , pp.11- 24. 

Honigmann, J., 2012. the equAlIty ACt 2010. The Equality Act 2010 in Mental Health: A Guide to Implementation and Issues for Practice , p.18. 

Lawson, A., 2011. Disability and employment in the Equality Act 2010: opportunities seized, lost and generated. Industrial Law Journal , 40 (4), pp.359-383. 

Lockwood, G., Henderson, C. and Thornicroft, G., 2012. The Equality Act 2010 and mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry , 200 (3), pp.182-183. 

Wadham, J., 2010. Blackstone's guide to the Equality Act 2010 . Oxford University Press, USA. 

Waughray, A. and Dhanda, M., 2016. Ensuring protection against caste discrimination in Britain: Should the Equality Act 2010 be extended?. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law , 16 (2-3), pp.177-196. 

Wintemute, R., 2016. Goodbye EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Hello Repeal of the Equality Act 2010?. King's Law Journal , 27 (3), pp.387-397. 

Wintemute, R., 2016. Goodbye EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Hello Repeal of the Equality Act 2010?. King's Law Journal , 27 (3), pp.387-397.