Who is protected
The Equality Act sets out “protected characteristics” which cannot be used as a reason to treat people unfairly. The protected characteristics are:
- age
- disability
- gender reassignment
- marriage and civil partnership
- pregnancy and maternity
- race
- religion or belief
- sex
- sexual orientation
The Equality Act protects everyone against unfair treatment in one way or another – for example, it is unlawful to treat either men or women unfairly because of their sex. This does not mean that you cannot treat people differently where it is appropriate to do so – for example, services for women who have experienced domestic violence can be delivered in a women-only setting.
The Equality Act mainly brings together what was in previous law, but also changes the definition of “gender reassignment”. It also enables Parliament to make further legislation to change the definition of “race” to include “caste”.
You can find all the relevant parts of the act that relate to “Who is protected” to the left.
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?
Stuart Wilson said on April 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm
It is unequal treatment of employees, and unfair, where an employee on maternity leave is allowed to accrue ALL holiday allowance and Bank Holiday pay throughout their maternity leave, to be then paid it or take it when they return to work. All other employees have to work hard and contribute to the company to gain their entitlement to this.
Stuart Wilson said on April 11, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Remove legislation that enforces employers to treat everyone as equal, regardless of ‘age’. This is a nonsense as age is a key factor in experience, attitude and qualifications. As an employer, we must be able to take age into consideration when recruiting. It is hypocritical of Government to suggest that we should all have equal employment opportunities, regardless of age, when the government also dictates the minimum wage levels ‘based on age’! That, in itself, is ageist.
Jane Davies said on April 5, 2012 at 4:55 am
This piece of legislation could be improved by removing the selective discrimination of 4% of UK state pensioners, until that is done you cannot claim that the Equality Act protects everyone. To discriminate is illegal. The UK government is blatently guilty of discrimination. To deny 500,000 expat state pensioners the annual uprating whilst paying another 500,000 expat pensioners annual uprating when ALL have paid into the NI fund for those pensions is immoral, shameful and discriminatory. This act has no credibility while this disgraceful situation remains.
Jackelyn Dolin said on March 31, 2012 at 7:30 am
I appreciate, lead to I found exactly what I was having a look for. You have ended my four day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye
Karen Mount said on February 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I really think that you should leave it as it is – people have campaigned long and hard for any kind of equality and justice for everyone.
Jane Davies said on April 3, 2012 at 11:18 pm
No Karen it should not be left as it is, not until this government stop the discrimination of the frozen state pensioners. The whole point of an Equality Act is that nobody suffers discrimination, it is even more shameful that it is the government doing the discriminating, another bunch of MP’s saying “do as I say, not as I do”.
Dean Wales said on January 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm
The law should only be altered in order to make it stronger.Though i doubt this government will do so as its own departments currently ignore this legislation in order to provide a lesser than, derogatory service to disabled people than that which it provides to able bodied people on the basis of political expediancy and pandering to particular sectors in society, which is largely the basis for this ‘redtapechallenge’ in reality.If you wanted to assist business then addressing the various taxes, particularly the business rate version of council tax, which are strangling new business would be a good place to start.Its shutting new start business local to me before they’ve even got off the ground.I believe what is being proposed will inevitably lead to further and greater abuse by corporations and employers via a winding down of legislation that protects.Dont do it.
Helen Mott said on January 16, 2012 at 10:59 am
this legislation should not be changed. It could even be expanded to protect people from discrimination through shape and size.
d hadden said on October 13, 2011 at 3:44 pm
the legislation is fine. it doesnt need changing. If any thing it needs strenghtening
George Morley said on October 12, 2011 at 5:49 pm
“The Equality Act protects everyone” ? Everyone presumably means Every British citizen – right ?
If not , what does it mean ? Does it mean only British citizens who live in the UK ? We will assume that anyone in the UK is included then. Does it mean British citizens in Europe as well ? Does it mean British citizens in the British Commonwealth as well ? What does it really mean ? IOf it means only British citizens in the UK then why have the government abandoned all of the other citizens living outside of the UK ?
Jerry Smart said on October 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm
In is UNEQUAL to have to pay an employee who has been on maternity leave for holiday leave (pro rata) when other employees have worked hard in and contributed to the business for their entitlement.
John Sydenham said on October 12, 2011 at 9:30 am
Remove the protection of Religion and Belief and place it in a separate Act that deals with the person committing the alleged harassment and the alleged victim in the Courts not in Tribunals.
Employers should not be concerned with this level of relationship between staff members and, whilst the use of Tribunals to deal with passive matters such as race is acceptable, the use of Tribunals to decide matters of active belief is an affront to democracy.
Leave employers out of the Religion and Belief enforcement, they don’t need this sort of worry. Also society does not need over-zealous corporations and public bodies banning all political comment “just in case”.
John Sydenham said on October 12, 2011 at 9:54 am
To clarify my proposal, it applies specifically to:
26 Harassment
(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
and
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each
of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
In respect of the protected characteristic of Belief or Religion
and also:
40 Employees and applicants: harassment
(2) The circumstances in which A is to be treated as harassing B under subsection
(1) include those where—
(a) a third party harasses B in the course of B’s employment, and
(b) A failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable
to prevent the third party from doing so.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply unless A knows that B has been harassed in the
course of B’s employment on at least two other occasions by a third party; and
it does not matter whether the third party is the same or a different person on
each occasion.
(4) A third party is a person other than—
(a) A, or
(b) an employee of A’s.
In respect of the protected characteristic of Belief or Religion