Discrimination 's Take Home Exam

| in addition to age, under the Equality Act people cannot be discriminated against as a result of any of the other ‘protected characteristics’. These are: disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

1.3 The legislation relating to equality, diversity and inclusion, stems both from UK government and European union. It offers protection from discrimination on grounds of age, disability, gender, race and ethnic origin, religious faith or belief and sexual orientation. The legislation has implications on all workplaces, in terms of employment practice and in terms of the services provided. Compliance with the legislation must be embedded in your Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies.

The relevant law used by the court to determine the outcome of the case was the “"bona fide occupational qualification" exception of § 703(e),

Nice post Theresa Scully, your views based on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, on hiring a pregnant woman, might not always be suitable for a small company. In most cases financial difficulties usually play a role with small companies choices of employees. If an accident happened to a pregnant woman while on the job, the cost would be unbearable, because it would not be just one person but two (unborn child). I definitely would not hire a pregnant woman to fill a small business’s blue-collar job position unless that position was a desk job or lite work. As an employer it is your duty or liability that the work environment is safe for all conditions of your employees. Pregnant woman whose performances are physically restricted from

Pregnancy discrimination in the work place is alive and well in the 21st Century. There has been an increase in the need for laws protecting the rights of pregnant women. Due to disparate treatment of pregnant women, laws have been established to protect their employment rights. Although laws are in place to prevent such discrimination, it has not eliminated the problem of employers discriminating against pregnant women.

A woman is eligible for “Maternity leave” if, “She is absent from the employment for a period not exceeding eight weeks for the purpose of giving birth; or if she gives her employer at least two weeks of notice of her anticipated date of departure and intention to return.” (“Maternity Leave Act”, 2007) Thanks to these numerous regulations and rights, in these specific circumstances the employees have to be treated fairly, and cannot be discriminated. There are legal penalties when employees are not treated

In a world where there have been so many advancements, is it really necessary to have laws to protect us from discrimination in the workplace? The answer is a definite yes. Unfortunately, in

Under section 4 of The Equality Act (EqA) 2010 a protected characteristic is defined as age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. EqA 2010 s. 9 (1) defines race as including ‘colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins’. In the case of Mary Baloch the

Additionally, pregnancy discrimination can lead to repercussions for taking maternity leave. For example, they can return early to work before having recovered from childbirth, and they can lose their job due to their need for leave or their boss’s hostility towards the

* Right not to be treated less favourable then an employee if work part-time (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Act 200)

It further goes onto state under section 5 of the SDA that a person cannot discriminate on the grounds of “their sex … characteristic that appertains and is imputed to persons of that sex”. In other words by treating a person of the opposite sex less favourably than another person in a similar circumstance is thought to be sexually discriminating against that person. On the other hand indirect discrimination means that policies and practices within the workplace disadvantage one gender more than the other without actually revealing it intentions. An example is if a company offers a bonus for working with them continuously for 20 years, it is likely that a woman would have taken time off to have and care for the child, in contrast to the men. If the discriminator imposes a condition or practices that could possibly have an effect the person of that sex is covered under this section. This vital piece of legislation is frequently used to help the workforce avoid and deal with discriminatory situations. If a worker is excluding from a social gathering on the basis on their gender, then sex discrimination has occurred. This act assisted in the removal of the once deeply entrenched attitudes of discrimination, that existence within the Australian culture. The SDA is the

Monique may be able to rely on both Article 18 and 45 of TFEU which concerns any kind of discrimination against EU citizens. The Council Directive 14/08 will be examined whether it is direct or indirect applicable, or if it can be applicable under the principle of state liability. In the case where one of the above can be established, Monique will be able to seek compensations against either Conker Plc or the United Kingdom’s State for non-implementation of the directive.

Pregnancy is an inherent quality directed solely to women, therefore it is much deserving of special protection. The dawn of democracy in 1994 brought with it a new era of labour rights. No longer may employers unfairly discriminate against workers on the basis of gender or sex. Unfair treatment or dismissal on this basis amounts to gender discrimination. Legal pressure is important to protect women’s employment and health during pregnancy. Among the complexities of gender equality is the question as to what extent our society adopts fairness when dealing with pregnancy of women in the workplace. Although the legislature has implemented many initiatives in support of pregnant women in the workplace, the question that arises is that, is it sufficiently implemented or has it been drawn up and not put to practical use.

For the Court to have decided that Ms Dano should be allowed to claim special non-contributory cash benefits would allow economically inactive migrants to take advantage of the welfare system of the Member State they have migrated to putting an unreasonable burden on the Member State to provide for these migrants who do not have sufficient funds. The

A breach of the non-discrimination core obligation could exist if this procedure was conducted because X is of a specific economic or social standing, female or even over a certain age. That breach will have infringed upon X’s right to health. Also, the special protection given to women immediately following childbirth appears to have been violated.