Prohibited conduct
The Equality Act sets out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone, such as direct discrimination, harassment and failing to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person. For example, it is unlawful for a landlord not to let a property to someone because they are Muslim, or for an employer to allow staff to racially abuse a colleague.
The Act mainly brings together what was in previous law. In addition it:
- widens protection to cover more people from direct discrimination. It now includes people who are wrongly perceived to have, or who are associated with, someone who has a protected characteristic (eg age, race etc);
- makes the definition of indirect discrimination more consistent and extends it to cover disability and gender reassignment;
- strengthens protection for disabled people.
The Act also contains new protection from discrimination because of a combination of two protected characteristics. The Government does not intend to implement this measure.
Tell us what you think should happen to these measures and why, being specific where possible
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
Refusing to implement the provision on protecting people from dual discrimination is a retrograde step and risks damaging the progress that this country has made in reducing the general level of discrimintation people experience.Comment Tags: dual discrimination
This legislation is making our office an increaingly unpleasant place to work – people are having to watch virtually everything that they say in case it offends someone who overhears it.
Within the space of a few months a previously friendly and co-operative office has become nasty and underhand.
I suggest the following:
1. A more objective standard on what can and can’t be said, rather than “whatever offends people” – at present, the tone of the entire office is set by the most intolerant person. this is not democratic by any means. In particular, there needs to be the ability for management to say to someone “you shouldn’t reasonably be offended by this”.
2. Set a cap of £15,000 on harassment cases compensation – it’s around the same amount of compensation that is awarded to a soldier who loses a limb in battle, so it can hardly be called unfair.
At present, the possibility of huge compensation is surely tempting people into taking offense when normally they wouldn’t be bothered – the tolerant are paid nothing , the whingers everything.Comment Tags: harassment, offence
You have hit the jackpot here. The government do it all the time ! Stealing from the pensioner 1 Wow it’s so easy to steal from those less able to defemd themselves especially if they are not living next door but in another country. freezing one in every twentfive pensioners is discrimination. – Hello are you listening ? This is illegal ! This is reneging on a contract ! But then politicians are used to telling fibs are’nt they ? Tney say anything to win a seat and then do the opposite when they get it.. And the pensioneres suffer still.Comment Tags: frozen pension
The Rehabilitation of offenders act needs to be amended. Many people have criminal records in the UK, some for trivial things. If someone has stayed on t he right side of the law for 10 years their record should be wiped clean. People are not given a proper second chance in the UK, too many people are scrap heaped for a mistake. Are we all the same person we were 5, 10 or even 15 years ago? If a conviction is spent, it should be exactly thatComment Tags: Rehabilitation of Offenders
Include Disabled people in their own right & not as a statistic of discriminated against people.
Education providers need to be challenged on how they use this in practice to support legislation rather than tick boxes. Ofsted fail to provide appropriate inspection to meet the needs of both disabled learners and staff. Thus public authority councils break the law and are allowed to continue doing so.Comment Tags: Council failure to comply with current legislation
Wonderful goods from you, man. Red Tape Challenge – Prohibited conduct I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just too magnificent. I actually like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you are saying and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it smart. I can’t wait to read far more from you. This is really a wonderful Red Tape Challenge – Prohibited conduct informations.
Wonderful goods from you, man. Red Tape Challenge – Prohibited conduct I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely great. I really like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it sensible. I can not wait to read much more from you. This is actually a tremendous Red Tape Challenge – Prohibited conduct informations.
Although harassment in the workplace, particularly in education and the NHS, suprisingly, is endemic, the prosecution of bullies is very rare. It is often the case that the target of bullying is persuaded to leave, albeit with a few months’ salary and an agreed reference. Many organisations may adopt policies that promote fairness in the workplace, but the odds are stacked against those on the receiving end of abuses of authorityComment Tags: john@altius.org.uk
I agree with your Red Tape Challenge – Prohibited conduct, excellent post.
The decision to scrap dual discrimination negates years of campaigning. To assume dual discrimination is rare and can be handled by self-regulation and basic employment law is naive and misleading. Legislation against dual discrimination should be allowed to come into effect, as was originally agreed democratically.
This legislation is the outcome of many years development and should stay as it is or strengthened. No aspect of the Act should be scrapped. A voluntary code will not work in this area where people have attitudes that they have inherited from times when society had injustices we now regard as unacceptable. If the legislation is simplified it will lose some of its force. Bureaucracy is a loaded word – do you mean we should reduce the means whereby the legislation is enforced, in which case, no, it should not be reduced. It should be left as it is.
A lot of thought and debate went into the wording of this act and it was pulled together after much consultations with people who’s lives have been affected by in tolerant, abusive or simply scornful behaviour. To water it down would reduce the impact of the legislation. Keep it as it is.
•Should we scrap them altogether?
No. This widening of protection is important in that it recognises that equality is a societal issue and that discrimination by perception or association does have a negative impact on peoples lives. This has already been recognised in case law and as such serves to remind employers that employees come with all kinds of responsibilities and identities.
•Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
No. Having the legislative framework will provide better protection for people. A voluntary code would only serve to widen the gap between employers.
•Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
In a way these new definitions have arisen out of the need to reform the old equality laws. Lets give the new Act time to function before rushing to reform, simplify or merge.
•Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
•Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
Before jumping to assumptions around bureaucracy and burdens lets give the new Equality Act 2010 time to bed in and after a suitable time e.g. 3 years carry out a review on its effectiveness.
•Should they be left as they are?
Yes – see above comment.
• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
No: We consider that these proposals are unwarranted and unrealistic as we have an obligation as a European Community member state to have statutory protection in place to address direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation; and additional provisions in respect of disability discrimination which includes the provision of reasonable adjustments.
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
No: We are concerned at the government’s proposal to review the implementation of the provisions on 3rd party harassment even before a case has been taken. We consider that it is not reasonable for employers to knowingly expose employees to harassment. Where organisations do not take action we consider that the law should be available for individuals.
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
No: We do not consider that the Equality Act is burdensome or bureaucratic. We consider that there should be a statutory agency (such as the EHRC) which provides authoritative advice and guidance on the proper implementation of the legislation.
• Should they be left as they are?
Yes: We consider that the provisions on prohibited conduct should not (and cannot) be reduced.
• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
No: We consider that these proposals are unwarranted and unrealistic as we have an obligation as a European Community member state to have statutory protection in place to address direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation; and additional provisions in respect of disability discrimination which includes the provision of reasonable adjustments.
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
No: We are concerned at the government’s proposal to review the implementation of the provisions on 3rd party harassment even before a case has been taken. We consider that it is not reasonable for employers to knowingly expose employees to harassment. Where organisations do not take action we consider that the law should be available for individuals.
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
No: We do not consider that the Equality Act is burdensome or bureaucratic. We consider that there should be a statutory agency (such as the EHRC) which provides authoritative advice and guidance on the proper implementation of the legislation.
• Should they be left as they are?
Yes: We consider that the provisions on prohibited conduct should not (and cannot) be reduced.
2. PROHIBITED CONDUCT (Behaviour which is against the law)
Should we scrap them altogether?
Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way for e.g. through a voluntary code? How?
No we consider that this proposal is unwarranted and unrealistic as we have an obligation as a European Community member state to have statutory protection in place for all the named protected characteristics.
Is wholly appropriate for Fire and Rescue Services as public sector providers to address inequality and support the wider public sector agenda with regards to life chances and inequality.
Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
No, we are concerned at the Government’s proposal to review implementation of the provisions on 3rd Party Harassment even before a case has been taken. We consider that it is not reasonable for employers to knowingly expose employees to harassment and where organisations do not take action we consider the law should be available for individuals
Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
We do not consider the Equality Act to be burdensome or bureaucratic. We consider there should be a statutory agency such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission which provides authoritative advice and guidance on the proper implementation and enforcement of the legislation.
Should they be left as they are?
Yes we consider that the provisions on prohibited conduct should not and cannot be reduced.
“The Equality Act sets out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone, such as direct discrimination, harassment and failing to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person.”
The law should make Directors criminally liable for cases of Prohibited Conduct, and Trading Standards should be required to prosecute where a Company or a Public Body repeatedly acts in this unlawfully way.
Since the DDA 1995 People in employment have Tribunals, but consumers have been left to fend for themselves, unless there is a more general Consumer Protection issue such as displaying a LOGO offering an accessibility aid (e.g. an Induction LOOP) and then failing to provide this in a timely maner.
The above a essential if the EqA 2010 is to function as intended and bring about a change in attitudes among businesses and the public.
I can cite examples of FTSE100 companies and NHS providers who despite agreeing to the validity of complaints about Disability Discrimination, have repeated the same acts of discrimination at the same premisses for several years, in most cases, continuing up to and including June 2011. In another case I first wrote to the Customer Service of a chain of shops on the weekend the DDA was implemented, and have complained in branches on several occasions since, without any noticeable effect.
It should be made clear that repeated discrimination is by its very nature, harassment and victimisation.
Refusal, includes making a service inaccessible to anyone with a Protected Characteristic.
e.g a bank that will only offer an investment by phone is refusing to serve the Deaf
I agree with Sheila Delaney’s succinct and powerful arguments
Should we scrap them altogether?
No. No aspect of the Act should be scrapped. The Act offers us a means by which we can be treated fairly and equally
Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
No, for people to be able to challenge inequality and discrimination there needs to be basic principles they can draw upon which are enshrined in legislation. “Voluntary Codes”have never worked in the past in any regulatory way and are totally unacceptable.
Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
No. The Equality Act 2010 is already a recent simplification of past equalities legislation, The Act was developed in extensive consultation with key partners from business and a wide range of communities. The provisions of the Act have been developed for all members of civil society, and provide rights and protections from discrimination. The Equality Act 2010 should not be reformed, simplified or merged
Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
No. The term bureaucracy is not helpful and implies inefficiency and dogmatism and unduly cumbersome paperwork and processes, when in fact it can play a part in eliminating inequality and discrimination and then there need to be clear, demonstrable measures that local communities can access and the paperwork that is often the only way that information can be accessed.
Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
There is a tendency to regard duties towards some aspects of governing society as burdensome especially those which benefit the less powerful or wealthy.It is no doubt a ‘burden’ on local communities and to civil society when some sections of the communities face disadvantage and discrimination. Equal rights are not a burden, for example, do we consider it a burden when we say every child should have access to education? Have we decreed it burdensome when the procedures set in place for claiming some benefits are so complex and”burdensome” that many rightful claimants do not get them?
Should they be left as they are?
Yes, any dilution of the Act will be seen as a regression. For equality and fairness to be reflected in our society the Act is essential. In fact the Act should be strengthened and enforced fully. Government must not and should not consider the rights of society as a ‘burden’.
Sheila Delaney’s response is excellent. I echo every word.
I think that all the discussions, consultation and deliberation that has gone into the development of the Act, which simplifies previous legislation and has been assessed by the Treasury as a money-saver compared with what went before, should have been enough to convince the government that it is good enough as it stands, unless they believe that the MPs of all parties who passed it into law could not be trusted to get it right. It becam law less than 18 months ago and implementation of phase 1 was less than six months before the government started to suggest scrapping it. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrat parties declared support for its measures when seeking election they have done nothing but seek to diminish, by stealth, its impact ever since. Businesses had every opportunity – more than most given their vast collective resources – to influence the Equality Act during its development and progress through parliament yet this hugely powerful lobby is now being privileged above all other groups, and particularly against those who havetoo little power in society, and those civil society organisations that represent them, in this focused attack on the Act. Is it the government’s policy now to keep asking the question until they get the answers they are seeking? Is it also so confused in its policies that it is happy to dismiss the views of every reputable ‘Big Society’ equality organisation in the country in its plan to turn back the clock on equality in this country?