The Equality Act 2010 came into force on the 1st of October 2010, composing 116 portions of legislation that protect everyone's rights and advances equality of opportunity to all. This act provides British citizens with the discrimination law safeguarding people from unfair treatment through justice to all (Atkinson 2020, p.4). The law protects people from discrimination based on characteristics, including age, disability, race, sex, and many others. Further, the law protects the citizens from discrimination in the workplace, public service points like hospitals, transport, etc. The law also distinguishes direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimizations. Generally, the Equality Act 2010 under the employment law presents full protection to individuals at the workplace.
The case for employees with different characteristics presented to the labor law court deserves the full right of protection per the Equality Act 2010 . The employees filed a discrimination case against their employees for violating their work contract. Under the Equality Act 2010, all employees are protected from discrimination at their workplaces (Kok et al., 2020, p.3). Considering the employer's decision to act against her employees' will, the employees have a full mandate to seek justice as provided by the law. Law protects any form of discrimination against everyone.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Employees' dismissal case by their employer, Top Quality store, indicates their employer's rights violated. The Equality Act 2010 then has the full force of protecting the employees from dismissal even though they act based on their work contract policies (Boesky, 2017, p.98). The case represents multiple forms of discrimination against employees with the general consequence of employment dismissal. The employees have adopted a new lifestyle within a given time frame that forms their current living conditions. Thus, the employer's act of dismissing her employees manifests as a direct form of discrimination by laid them off their duties.
Our first case involves Winston, who has transformed the lifestyle of being a vegetarian for health purposes. His choice directly affects his present working condition at the workplace, with policies of delivering duties that force him to work in the stores where he feels discriminated against by Top Quality. The employer acts do not consider Winston's case of being a vegetarian instead of dismissing him even if Winston could serve in two stores. Reflecting on the Equality Act 2010 on this case, Winston faces an indirect form of discrimination, harassment, and victimization where their employer decided to direct all employees in the store sectors to attend to all customers' demands in all the stores without considering His lifestyle but to make capital (Bhana, 2017, p.150). Also, Winston's complaints are not heard by the employer; this clearly shows that the employer does not protect human rights on equality as per the Equality act 2010. Under the Constitution on the Equality Act 2010 on employees and applicants: harassment states that an employer (A)must not concern employment by A, harass a person (B) subsection (a) who is an employee of A's and (b) who has applied for A for employment (Walt van der, 2019,p.37). This part of the law protects the employees from harassment. Similarly, in service provision at the stores, the employer offering an opportunity to employees to serve customers in all stores indicate that any duty to make reasonable adjustment applies to (a) service provider under section 55(7) as provided in the provision of services act part 3 section 29. These provisions protect the diversity of the employees, like change in lifestyle as seen in Winston.
Winston requires justice in the provision of employment working conditions from the employer. Equality Act 2010 constitution fully protects him and other similar employees with the same characteristics. The study of Winston's case has impacted the sense of realizing employees' rights at work and the employer's duties in learning the law as it protects the employees. Under the acting part 2, chapter 2 discrimination supplementary section 25(7), which addresses the religious or beliefs related to discrimination subsection (b) discrimination within section (19). Relevant protected characteristics are religion, like choosing to be vegetarian and protected to influence the work codes of conduct (Walt van der, 2019, p.36). For it protects the health of these people.
The second case for Daisy, a long-term services provider in the Top Quality store, has been operating within the environment with no difficulties, currently facing discrimination by their employer following the retirement of two staff serving in the meat counter. Daisy, being vegan, could not do in the meat, dairy, and eggs counters. Following the employer's directives that all counters service providers need to attend to the customers' needs and demands, Daisy is a challenge by the conditions. Her failure leads to dismissal from the work (Verniers and Vala, 2018, p. 2). Her case brings to light the enforcement of the Equality Act 2010 to provide full protection at work. Her rights to her lifestyle and gender are looked at, concerning her employability. In the Equality Act 2010, part 2, chapter1, sections 4 of the Constitution highlighting protected characteristics like gender reassignment and beliefs. The law protects various characteristics for employees who require full protection by law.
Following the employers' policies to the workers, there is evidence that the employees failed to report to work to secure their wellbeing. And this could lead to the next action of dismissing them from their duties by their employer. Daisy is a case study of such incidences in the county; it is possible to identify the gaps within which the employees suffer in their bosses' hands. T le through cross-checking the strength of the Equality Act 2010 under section sixteen, addressing the gender reassignment discrimination; case of absence from work by the employees (Kim et al., 2020, p.7). The section affects protecting gender reassignments at work when the absence of employees results from other reasons that are not reasonable or treated less favorable by the employer. The right of employees is protected by the laws further to which they will not suffer employment dismissal.
In the study, Daisy's case indicates harassment, where the employer, Top Quality, intimidates and provides a hostile or offensive environment to workers Daisy being one, depicts an act of violation. Considering the Equality Act 2010 under chapter two, other prohibited conduct section twenty-six of the Constitution, the law approves various forms of harassment individuals could face in workplaces and public lives. This section of the law where the harassment occurs and affects persons like creating humiliation, intimidation, or provision of the offensive environment as seen from the act where the employer of Daisy demands that she serves in the counters with meat and dairy products. Creating a hostile environment of doing work could be a way of humiliating her (Kim et al., 2020, p.8). As a result, the employer needs to understand their employees' diversity, minimizing employment harassment to employ more suitable candidatures to a server in the positions following the previous workers' retirement.
Gender discrimination is a significant threat at workplaces, calling for law enforcement to protect both genders from undergoing the threats. One of the employment laws is the Equality Act 2010, developed and implemented to secure human rights among the Britain states. This law provision addresses forms of gender discrimination at different points. Focusing on gender discrimination at the workplace and considering the case of Daisy, her discrimination a work is manifested when the employer directs her to serve in the units, contradicting her life and health (SteelFisher et al., 2019, p.1449). The provided laws in discrimination section nineteen indicate indirect discriminations to individuals under some criterion or practice concerning protected characteristics in which the victim is disadvantaged at work points. Such discriminations pose a threat to the women's gender following their sex orientations at work.
Our third case is for Oba, who has broken legs, making him differently-abled since he has to use wheelchairs to move about. His duties at work call for a long time standing in his position as a picker in one of the stores, but instead, the employment conditions do not accommodate him. As a result, Oba is offered dismissal with notice. The employer's action called the Equality Act 2010 to protect Oba from discharge from the duties. They are considering that the state of Oba of accidentally being disabled is among the characteristics protected by the law. The law indicates that all employees who are serving under the work contracts as provided by the employers' performance work contract act; under subsection (1,2,3) address the concept of employers' discrimination, harassment, and victimization of all employees (Steel Fisher et al., 2019, p.1450). This part of the clause section addresses the don'ts that every employer should be aware of when dealing with employees who could compromise their rights.
Disability is among the current concerns in the employment industries. Employability Oba's provisions need to be defined clearly by the employer; in the full realization of right protection as per the employment act under the Equality Act 2010. The law provides recruitment of persons with a disability, and the employer's assessments for qualification are fundamental when recruiting employees in the various positions. Since failure to which call for action of law when dismissals are made. To fully ascertain the employability of disabled individuals is recommended that proper assessments be made to attain the person's suitability for the works (McQuater, 2017, p.41). The health status of individuals, whether disabled or not, needs to be assessed by the employer. Employment advertisements should provide qualifications for different forms of disabilities and health conditions.
Employability of disabled individual needs to determine the various degrees of disabilities and provide assessment measures to justify the disability. If the disabled are discriminated against by employers, it is against the law. Such discrimination will happen at work, in service delivery points, housing, educations, and transport systems. The form of discrimination may be indirect or direct. Direct discrimination happens when individuals are treated less favorably because they are disabled than others who are not disabled under the same circumstance (McQuater, 2017, p.42). Indirect discriminations tend to exclude the disabled by providing unfair treatments in the event of offering certain services. Both forms of discrimination of persons reveal the diverse concept of the cases involved in the study. The employer discriminates against Oba following the disability for not standing as required by the Top Quality stores in service delivery. Much of the discrimination at work is evident to employees who are disabled and women. If such cases are identified, then the individuals need to seek aid from the employment tribunal. The employment tribunal protects individuals' rights by enforcing the law on any form of unfair treatment at work.
Equality Act 2010 explains the duty of employers for not mistreating disabled because of their condition. It protects these groups of people in what is termed as discrimination arising from discrimination that only applies to the disabled (Fell and Dyban, 2017, p.192). Says that treatments of disabled persons' amount of discrimination where an employer treats him, disabled person, unfavorably or treatment are because of something arising in the consequences of the disabled person's disability, all apply unless the employer does not know about the disability perspective of the people. All the employees are entitled to protection by the law under the Quality Act 2010 and in the statutory employment code of practice that shows means of dealing with discrimination cases.
The plight of the 1000 female employees serving as checkout assistants at the Top Quality had their requests for payment claims following the similarity in the work contracts assigned during recruitment. Considering the men who are serving in the deportation section in a similar industry with high payment rise cause the call for the equalization of the employer's payment (Fagan and Rubery, 2018, p.310 ). The challenging end is that the bodies who are responsible for the salary negotiation are different departments. The case to be addressed here is modifying the contract –payment scheme by the employer that can be made internally. Under the Equality Act 2010, their rights are presented because there is indirect discrimination against the 1000 female workers. The high pay rise indicates oppression and discrimination on the females, showing no equality in their payment (Fagan and Rubery, 2018, p.315). The law is flexible to the females' needs as they are gender-sensitive following the firm's employing them. Still, the payment department is not proactive in safeguarding the payment concerning the work contract under the Equality Act 2010 that clearly explains the discussion about the firms' payment. Similarly, under the employer's validation of the employees' pay gap is a statutory requirement to bring o full attention to why they are acting. They will help minimize the friction between the two workers while serving in different roles, even if they have the same work contract.
The Equality Act 2010 servers the purpose of protecting everyone. It comes when people are faced with the challenges at work and on daily lifestyles, and they fail to get justice as provided in the court of law. The provision protects the employees and employer by ensuring no forms of discrimination, harassment, and victimization. The provision considers all the protected characteristics.
Reference List
Atkinson, J., 2020. Automated management, digital discrimination, and the Equality Act 2010. Green's Employment Law Bulletin , (159), pp.3-6.
Bayefsky, A.F., 2017. The principle of equality non-discrimination in International Law. In Equality and Non-Discrimination under International Law (pp. 71-104). Routledge.
Bhana, D., 2017. The implications of the right to equality in terms of the Constitution for the Common Law of Contract. South African Law Journal , 134 (1), pp.141-161.
Fagan, C. and Rubery, J., 2018. Advancing gender equality through European employment policy: the impact of the UK's EU membership and the risks of Brexit. Social Policy and Society , 17 (2), pp.297-317.
Fell, E.V., and Dyban, M., 2017. Against discrimination: Equality Act 2010 (UK). The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). Vol. 19: Lifelong Wellbeing in the World (WELLSO 2016).—Nicosia, 2017. , 192016 , pp.188-194.
Kim, G., Kim, J., Lee, S.K., Sim, J., Kim, Y., Yun, B.Y. and Yoon, J.H., 2020. Multidimensional gender discrimination in the workplace and depressive symptoms. Plos one , 15 (7), p.e0234415.
Kok, A., Xaso, L., Steenekamp, A., and Oelofse, M., 2020. The promotion of equality and prevention of unfair discrimination Act 4 of 2000: Proposals for Legislative Reform to Promote Equality through Schools and the Education System. Erasmus Law Review , 13 (3).
McQuater, J., 2017. Disability and the 2010 Equality Act: Relevance in personal injury claims. Bone & Joint 360 , 6 (2), pp.40-42.
SteelFisher, G.K., Findling, M.G., Bleich, S.N., Casey, L.S., Blendon, R.J., Benson, J.M., Sayde, J.M. and Miller, C., 2019. Gender discrimination in the United States: Experiences of women. Health services research , 54 , pp.1442-1453.
Walt van der, J.J., 2019. The meaning of (unfair) discrimination: constitutional law. Without Prejudice , 19 (5), pp.36-37.
Verniers, C. and Vala, J., 2018. Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PloS one , 13 (1), p.e0190657.
