Law

Over the years, the employment and service provision sectors have been engulfed in persistent unequal and discriminative practices on grounds of race, religion and belief, gender, sexual orientation and transgender status, disability and age. This has seen the U.K. enact a myriad of legislative regulations and laws to tackle inequality and discrimination over the last 30 years. These regulations and laws have been seen to be weak, desperate and sometimes even conflicting. The laws in equality and employment have become hard to implement. This is the reason why the House of Lords recently enacted the Equity Act, 2010 which seeks to harmonize and consolidate discrimination legislation. The aim of this paper is to analyze the current law and identify the aspects in which it needed reform and harmonization. It will do so by consulting high level scholarly material on the topic and important case studies to identify and elaborate weaknesses in the law and how they could be remedied. Case studies are particularly helpful as they will pinpoint loopholes in legislation and give a guide on how they could be amended. The reaction that the Equity Act 2010 has elicited will also be of great use to this paper in identifying the contentious issues in employment and equality that need to be addressed. The importance of this paper is drawn from the fact that there needs to be mechanisms for individuals to lodge complaints in the courts when they experience discrimination. These mechanisms should be straight forward and should not be clouded in controversy and uncertainty. This paper will therefore give recommendations on how this could be achieved after a comprehensive analysis of the status quo.

This paper will start by evaluating the current Act on equality focusing on employment issues. It will evaluate its effectiveness and shortcomings in addressing discrimination issues in the context of employment. Although the discussion is centered on employment, it is necessary to focus on other issues regarding equality in the spheres of education, welfare, tax immigration, housing, and health and labor market policy. As Linda Dickens notes, drawing boundaries around the workplace is problematic in understanding what happens in employment relations. This is the reason as to why the paper sheds light onto these seemingly irrelevant but important issues. After this evaluation, there will be an attempt to give recommendations on how the law on equality and employment can be amended to give an effective act that will offer permanent solutions to equality and discrimination problems.

ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE REFORMS
The UK labor laws contain the employment equality law that prohibits prejudice in the workplace on grounds of gender, race, religionbelief, sexuality, disability and age. It contains different regulations in each of these fields that need reform and cohesion to give a comprehensive law combating discrimination in employment. This section will analyze in depth how each of these issues is addresses by the current law. Case studies will be used to elaborate how these laws operate.

GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Description of current law
The main piece of legislation in the UK that counters gender discrimination is the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975. It applies to all discrimination in the workplace in terms of job recruitment, training, promotion, work practices, dismissal or any other disadvantage such as sexual harassment. This law applies equally to both men and women. It holds liable an employer who discriminates against their employee on grounds of gender. If an employee commits the discrimination offence then their employer is held vicariously liable. This act breaks down the offences into direct offences and indirect offences. A direct offence is where the employer treats an employee of one gender less favorably than another of the opposite gender because of hisher marital status. For instance, a woman may be treated less favorably because she is pregnant or she has a pregnancy related illness. In such a case, while filling a suit, the employee would have to compare between how she was treated and how a man would have been treated to prove discrimination.

Indirect sex discrimination are policies and practices in the workplace that appear to apply equally to both sexes but in the real sense they disadvantage one gender considerably more than the other. For example, a requirement to work full time might be more of a bar for women than for men since women have more domestic commitments than men and hence they require more time out of the workplace. Another example is policy that attributes benefits to lengthened service without considering the time that a female employee has taken out to bring up her children. This is considered indirect sex discrimination.

Illustrative case study (Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli 1986 IRLR 134).
 In this case, Mrs. Porcelli is subjected to sexual harassment by two of her male colleagues who want her to leave Bella Houston Academy. Strathclyde Regional Council alleged that the treatment she received was not on grounds of her sex and therefore the men had not violated the Discrimination Act. On appealing, the Court of Session dismissed the decision by the Council stating that, if a form of unfavorable treatment is meted out to a woman to whom a man would not be vulnerable, she has been discriminated against within the meaning of S.1 (1) (a). This is an illustration of how the law is applied to curb sex discrimination.

Analysis of this legislation
The Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 needs reform to ensure proving a case in a court of law is not hard. The act makes it hard to prove sex discrimination as it is not straightforward in some areas. It requires that the case is presented before a Tribunal but the challenge arises from the fact that the Tribunal does not have to be certain that the employer behaved in a discriminative manner. The employee is supposed to establish facts to show discrimination on grounds of gender. After this the burden shifts to the employee to show that they did not discriminate against the employee. This is the tricky part since few employers are ready to admit liability and canny ones would take steps to legally show that they acted lawfully. The Tribunal would require concrete factual basis such as letters and documents to act upon. This combination of factors makes it hard for employees to successfully prove and win claims.

Another part of this Act that may derail it is the Tribunal claims and time limits. Employees are required to inform their employer in writing and the wait 28 days to give them time to respond. This gives room for the employer to maneuver their way in a bid to distort the claims and make them less likely to be heard by the Tribunal. The employer might use threats, dismissal and other tactics in this period to ensure prevent the claimant from advancing their case. Reforms are therefore needed to address these issues.

RACE RELATIONS
Description of current law
The legislation that covers race relations is the Race Relations Act 1976. It protects anyone who wholly or partly works in the UK against discrimination on the ground race in employment, education, transport and the provision of goods and services. It applies to all employees and workers (including job applicants), apprentices, contract and agency workers, office holders, the police, the self-employed and members of the armed forces irrespective of their length of service or the number of hours they work each week. It protects anyone who declined to carry out an order that heshe believes was in contrary to the Act. Direct discrimination is when an employer treats one person less favorably than someone else on racial grounds. Indirect discrimination is a practice that on the face of it seems neutral in relation to race but in the real sense it works to the disadvantage of one or more race groups. Harassment under this Act is when someone is treated in an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive manner because of their race.

Case study Wethersfield Limited ta Van  Truck Rentals v Sargent 1999 IRLR 94 Court of Appeal
In this case, Mrs. Sargent was employed as a receptionist by Wethersfield Limited, a truck company. A senior employee working under orders from the companys director gave her guidelines as to how individuals and different classes of people should be assessed for risk. Regarding ethnic minority customers, she was told she had to be careful to identify colored and Asian callers by voice and tell them that there were no vehicles available. She was so upset by this company policy that she resigned and brought a case of discrimination against the company. The Employment tribunal upheld the complaint and awarded 5000 compensation.

Analysis of this legislation
This Act has a weakness in successfully executing race cases in that it assumes that in order for someone to be treated less favorably on racial grounds, the treatment must be related to their own race. The complainant in this case was of white descent and therefore if the Act was to be followed to the latter, she would not have a solid case since she was not an ethnic minority. Lord Justice Phill rejected the more natural meaning of the wording in the Race Relations Act and considers the claims justified and appropriate in his own discretion.

The needed reforms in this piece of legislation should ensure that there is explicit expression to imply that on racial grounds may refer to any reason or action based on race. An employee could therefore refuse to obey an unlawful discriminatory instruction based on this reasoning. The words on racial grounds should therefore be explained to cover a race of a third party and not merely the race of the applicant. The harmonization should cover the reasoning of this decision to ensure that it remains protective over employees who are able to show the Employment Tribunal that they gave been offended by racism as a result of instruction from the employer regardless of weather it affects them directly.

SEXUALITY
Description of current law
Discrimination in employment on the grounds of someones sexuality is kept in check by the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulation 2003. This regulation protects individuals in employment, training, provision of goods and services in both public and private sectors. As from 2005, the 2005 Civil Partnership Act gave legal recognition to same sex couples hence employers have to ensure that staff in civil partnership receive same benefits as married couples These Regulations protect all workers who are discriminated against because of their real or perceived sexual orientations. They protect people who leave employment because they are discriminated against on ground of their sexuality. Such an employee would not be accused of breaching the employment contract. It covers direct and indirect discrimination in addition to harassment and victimization. Harassment is where someone is treated in an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive manner that violates their dignity on grounds of sexual orientation. Victimization is where someone is treated less favorably because they intend to make allegations of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, or because they have given or intend to give evidence under the Regulations.

Case study English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd
Mr. English works for Sanderson Blinds on agency basis. In the period that he worked for this company, he alleges that he had been subjected to endless homophobic banter simply because he had gone to a boarding school and lived in Brighton. According to him, this stereotypes him as a homosexual and it amounts to sexual harassment which is contrary to the Sexual orientation Regulations. The twist here is from the fact that his colleagues do not actually think he is a homosexual (and he is ware of this) but they are persistent in stereotyping him. The Tribunal decides that he cannot be deemed a victim of sexual harassment as he is not a homosexual himself nor is he perceived to be one. Mr. English appeals this decision to the Employment Act Tribunal on grounds that he should be accorded protection under regulation 5 since he faced discrimination on grounds that he has stereotypical characteristics associated with a gay person. The Tribunal rejected his appeal stating, The unwanted conduct was not on grounds of sexual orientation. The homophobic banter  unacceptable as it is, was a vehicle for teasing the Claimant . It was not based on his colleagues perception, incorrect or otherwise, that he was gay.

Analysis of this legislation
These Regulations as they currently stand cannot give people like Mr. English the protection they sought. It should be broadened to ensure that any negative conduct based on sexual orientation is deemed to be discrimination under this act. It should not be restricted to cases where the conduct arises from a perception that the victim is of a given sexual orientation. For example, if an employee is taunted by a colleague for displaying gay characteristics, heshe should be held liable of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation whether he actually believes in what he says or not.

RELIGION BELIEF
Description of current law
The piece of regulation in the UK on Religion or Belief is the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 which prohibit discrimination and harassment on grounds of religion or philosophical belief in employment, vocational training and the provision of goods, facilities and services. The Regulation extends cover to not only anyone who is a believer of an organized religion, but also one who holds any religious or philosophical belief such as paganism or humanism in addition to non believers. It protects people who are perceived as having certain beliefs while, in fact, they dont. The Regulations outlaw direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimization. Jokes and banter that someone might find offensive are covered meaning that harassment does not have to be intentional. Victimization is when someone is treated less favorably because they intend to make an allegation about discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, or because they have given or intend to give evidence under the Regulations. It does not matter if the allegations turn out to be true, providing the person made them in good faith.

Case study Chondol v Liverpool City Council
Naphtali Chondol is a committed Christian who is employed by Liverpool City Council as social worker. The Council prohibited social workers from promoting any religious beliefs in the course of work. The council dismisses him on grounds of gross misconduct following concerns that he is foisting his religious belief on people who used his service and that he breaks the councils working policy by taking a service user to his home without a prior risk assessment on the service user. He claimed unlawful discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The Tribunal dismisses the claims but it admits that he has been treated less favorably by the council not because he is a Christian, but because he foists his personal religious views on service users. He appeals arguing that the tribunal should have used a comparison with someone who is of an unrelated different belief and determine if they would be considered to be committing misconduct because of that belief.

Analysis of this legislation
This case demonstrates the need to incorporate pieces of law that ensure employees do not inconsiderately foist their strong religious beliefs on colleagues or people who us their service. Employers would therefore be able to take disciplinary action against such employees without such actions being considered as discrimination on grounds of religion. In such a case, the law would require that the tribunal make an informed distinction on the inappropriate promotion of religion or belief in the work place on one hand and on the other hand if this action is the employers true and sole reason for dismissal.

AGE ISSUES
Description of current law
To counter age discrimination in employment, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations were introduces in 2006. They outlaw discrimination in employment, training and adult education on the grounds of age. This protection is extended to cover discrimination that is based on the perception of someones age regardless of whether their real age is known. According to this regulation there should be no consideration on someones age in employment unless that person is within six months of the normal retirement age. Workplace benefits, transfers and promotions should not be offered by consideration of employees age. This Regulation is however limited on an employee whose age lies within the working age brackets. Someone who has not attained the age of 18 yrs cannot therefore claim that they were discriminated against by not being offered employment. Similarly, someone above the retirement age, say 65 cannot lodge a similar complain.

Illustrative case study Ann Southcott v Treliske Hospital.
The hospital dismissed the complainant, a 66 year old lady from her work on 30th September, 2006. This was the last day before the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations, 2006 would become applicable. This implied that she would get 11 weeks pay in line with the existing regulation instead of 11 months pay that would come with come with the new Regulation. She lodged a complain challenging this decision. She had clear evidence in support of her claim since hospital had publicly declared that they were dismissing aged workers to implications of the oncoming age regulations. As a result of this complains, the hospital decides to reinstate her so she could continue with her employment.

Analysis of this legislation
This case study shows how the law should be applied to cover employees against age discrimination that might be displayed by practices such as forced resignation or being declared redundant in the course of employment. The regulation should however be reformed to attain clarity on issue concerning forced retirement beyond the age of 65. This is a controversial area as can be illustrated by the case of Heyday whose challenge against forced retirement at age 65 was unsuccessful. He claimed that this practice was inconsistent with EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive. The legislation should be amended to indicate that an employer has the duty to consider an employees decision to work beyond retirement age if they are fit and able.

DISABILITY
This area is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which makes it unlawful to discriminate against workers on grounds of any disability that they may have. Here an employee would have to prove that they suffer from physical or mental problems that adversely affect their ability to carry out day to day activities. If these conditions can be treated or corrected it does not make the employee loose his or her protection against discrimination. Such conditions include most common illnesses, artificial limbs and progressive conditions such as HIVAIDS, cancer and multiple sclerosis.

Case study Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law
In this case, Ms. Coleman worked as a legal secretary in a firm of legal solicitors in London. During her employment period, she gave birth to a disabled child. The child required specialized care that could be best provided by the mother. As a result of this, she accepted voluntary redundancy which effectively brought an end to the contract of employment. She lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal claiming that this treatment was less favorable than what it could have been with other employees because she was the sole caretaker of her disabled child. This treatment made her to stop working for the firm. To support this claims, she says that on return from her maternity leave, her employer refused to allow her to return to her previous job or to offer her any flexibility on working hours. In addition, her employer made insulting, abusive and degrading comments directed to her and her child.

Analysis of this legislation
This case raises the concept of discrimination by association. The lady was not disabled but she claims that she was discriminated against on grounds that she had a disabled son. The law prohibits this kind of discrimination but contention arises from the equal implementation. It could give way to unfair competition where some employers are subjected to its directives while some are not. Harmonization in this case should therefore be meant to ensure that its application creates a level playing field for all employers. This is an issue that has been raised in European Commission spheres as the judgment on weather to allow associated discrimination lies on the member states. The UK should enact the new Act in line with EU regulations as it is a member state.

THE DIRECTION THAT THE REFORMS SHOULD TAKE
From the above consideration of UK Law on Employment and Equality, the following recommendations can be made in regards to how reforms should be carried out.

Need for harmonization Anti-discrimination legislation should be put into a single framework and entrenched into the law through a single Act that would cover gender, age, disability, race, sexuality, religion and other forms of discrimination. This will make all these areas attain on equal footing and make the need to eradicate discrimination in employment a universally accepted endeavor. If each and every form of discrimination is to be addressed singularly, some forms of discrimination run the risk of taking a backseat relative to other forms. This would lower the overall effectiveness of the efforts put to address discrimination .

Prescriptiveness of legislation The current UK laws on Equality and Employment have taken a flexible approach relying on courts to interpret discrimination by considering how the complainants present their cases. As has been shown in the various court cases outlined above, the tribunals rulings are arbitrary to a great extent and are not limited to what the law explicitly expresses. Legislators should be careful on establishing how prescriptive the laws should be. This flexibility has advantage in that it allows the law to evolve over time with changing conditions. The disadvantage lies in the fact that it may create a state of confusion and contradictory rulings. The UK could rely on the EU directives on the matter

Justification test the law should be reformed so that the employer will have to show that their actions were proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. Therefore, employers would be subjected to higher thresholds than at present. This will make it harder for employers to justify less favorable treatment that they may accord an employee. It should however ensure that innocent employers are protected by inserting a Knowledge requirement section. For example in regards to disability, an employer should have a valid defense if they shows that they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the employee had a disability

Indirect discrimination there needs to be introduced the notion of indirect discrimination. This would ensure that policies and practices in the workplace that appear to apply equally to different parties but in the real sense they disadvantage one party considerably more than the other are outlawed.

CONCLUSION
UK legislation need to consider the issues outlined so that various diverse issues can be effectively harmonized and ensure that cases of workplace discrimination are affectively addressed. From the argument presented in this paper, it is clear that the effectiveness of employment laws would be greatly enhanced by harmonization of the numerous pieces of legislation that are currently in use. There is also need to introduce new regulations that would cover areas that are not effectively addressed. While doing this, legislators should make an attempt towards enhancing the prescriptiveness of these regulations so that it is not subjected to manipulations by canny individuals. They should raise the bar for justification tests to ensure employees do not easily justify less favorable treatment that they may accord an employee. An Equality Act that captures these concerns will go a long way in securing equality in the UK employment sector.