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?
Implement the dual discrimination clauses. The idea that in a time of economic crisis – when people are more likely to face discrimination – we can’t afford to implement them is completely backwards.
no chage required
No change needed
No change needed
From what I have been told, DDA legislation is generally fine the way it is. People have worries that meeting the requirements of the legislation are unweildy, but overall, I understand that the bigger problem is that people have not been properly informed of how the legislation works.
No changes needed, leave this very valuable piece of legilsation alone.
NO CHANGE!!!
No changes required
The Equality Act as it is has taken considerable time and effort on the parts of various organisations and individuals through petitioning and campaigning. Even now it is clear that some people continue to be discriminated against, but at least the Act allows appropriate action to be taken! I would be very concerned if the government looked at introducing any loop holes or removing any parts of the Act. We need a longer period of time for it to be in place for it to be effectively reviewed and then changes should ony be considered to further imrove the Act and reinforce its message!
This law has just been passed after years of scrutiny and debate it needs to be left to take effect. If anything protection needs to be strengthened the evidence is clear – discrimination is pervasive in our society and very difficult to challenge
Leave primarily as it is. However, I agree with earlier comentator that someone eavesdropping on a private conversation has no right to cry discrimination over an issue that is not directly about him/her.
I am concerned about the recent headlines concerning same-sex couples being refused service at B&Bs. It is my belief that no disabled, gay, Muslim, old, or person of any other discriminated characteristic would knowlingly request service/goods from a place where they know they would not be welcome. With specific reference to B&Bs I believe customers and providers should use common-sense when booking. If the B&B owner takes the names of all in the party they have the opportunity to refuse the booking at that early stage. However, once they have accepted the booking they must honour it.
The Act has extended the prohibited conduct in a rational way following case law on the issue. The inclusion of discrimination by association and perception are logical extensions of the previous provisions as they were forms of discrimination that people were clearly suffering and had they not been prohibited they would have been unacceptable loopholes.
Dual discrimination should be included as prohibited conduct as it is often the dual impact of discrimination on the basis of two protected characteristics than can cause disadvantage and there are real difficulties with comparators without the dual discrimination provisions.
No change – this is a simplified version. I also think the combination protection should be implemented. We do not have a choice in what we are born as. People do have a choice in how they treat others and unfortunately people cannot be trusted to always treat people fairly.
No change required, except that dual discrimination should definitely be part of this provision.
No changes please.
Don’t change a thing!
no change requied
Direct discrimination is unacceptable. However, if two work colleagues are engaged in banter regarding, say, the fact that one of them is asian and they are both happy with this, then a third party should not be able to complain that they are “offended”
All of this needs to be upheld. No part of this act need needs whittling away. For example – hotel and bed and breakfast owners should not be allowed to discriminate against gay couples, if they are unhappy with homosexual sex taking place on there property no loophole in the law should allow them to discriminate and thus they can only ban all sex if it is their prerogative and not single anyone out.
Dual discrimination should be brought into force