Hello, Welcome to this session in which we're going to have a look at discrimination is a big topic. What we're going to do is gain an understanding of what the topic covers. So we're going to look at what the legislation is. We're going to look who's covered by discrimination legislation. We're then going to look at the areas covered which were referred to is protected characteristics. And then we're going to look at the different types of discrimination on DSO. By the end off this session, you should have a good broad understanding of the relevant issues that are on aren't covered by discrimination. So let's start off by looking at the law. And if we go back prior to 2010 there were nine major pieces of discrimination. Legislation on over 100 smaller pieces on the equality at 2010 took a little of that legislation that had grown eight since 19 seventies on. Put it into a one at Andi clarified some of the definitions that had got a little bit confused over the time. So everything that we're looking at in this session today is covered by the equality at 2010. It's also worth noting they that trade union representatives, part time workers on fixed term employees, can't be treated less favourably because they're a trade union representative or working on a part time contract to a fixed term contract. That is definitely true, but they're not covered by the equality at 2010. So when in a little further into this session, we start talking about things like direct discrimination on indirect discrimination that only applies to the nine protected characteristics that we're going to look out shortly. It doesn't apply to trade union reps part time workers on fixed term workers who's covered by discrimination law by the equality at 2010 well, it's match wider than some pieces of legislation. So in please Kenbrell a claim of discrimination, potentially former employees could as well if they're discriminated against after they've left the organization. Maybe the most common example of that is somebody who seeks a reference for a new job. Andi. Whilst they worked for the previous employer, they made a claim of discrimination or supported somebody who had Onda. A reference is refused. Because of that, that would be discrimination, and even though they no longer work for the employer that would still be covered. Self employed people are covered, Andi applicants are. This is really important to be aware off that when people apply for a job, if they believe that they have been turned down by the at the very initial stage, or maybe following an interview, if they believe that they've been to turn down for discriminatory reasons, then they could bring a claim of discrimination. Trainees are also covered now, of course, one of the difficulties with discrimination is how do you prove it? So you go for a job. I I apply for a job and I don't get it. And I think I didn't get it cause I'm a woman. How do I prove that? What is probably pretty impossible to prove? So what the courts require is that the person bringing that claim is able to show that something isn't quite right on. When's that person has achieved that very, very low threshold. The burden of proof, as we refer to it, passes to the employer to show a nondiscriminatory reason for what has happened. So if I applied for a job and I didn't get it on, guy say, Well, that's because I'm a woman on everybody else who's interviewed is a woman, and the person that gets the job is a woman. I'm probably going to struggle a little bit to show that something's not quite right. But if I didn't get the job and a man did get the job and I was better qualified and high high, better experience on at that level in the organisation, there were no women. Maybe I could start to say something not quite right here on. Then the employer would have to show a nondiscriminatory reason for what's happened now. I referred earlier to protected characteristics, and these are the grounds on which an employer cannot discriminate the listed here's or their age. Disability, gender reassignment, marital status and civil partnership, maternity, pregnancy, race, religion of relief, sex and sexual orientation. So it really important to know that if somebody is going to allege that they have been discriminated against, the reason has to be one of thes knowing for them to bring a claim under the equality at 2010. So one of the things I often ask my students when I'm lecturing at University is well, there's list. What would you add. If you were a lawmaker and we get into discussions about things like tattoos and piercings, they're not covered. If somebody's rejected for a job because they're heavily tattooed because they're heavily pierced, they haven't got a claim under the equality of 2010. I've also had some interesting discussions about appearance one year, had a student who had really bright ginger hair. And he said, I've been teased my whole life about the color of my hair. Andi, Surely that should be unlawful. No, it's no appearance. More blood Lee Obesity could be covered under a disability. It depends on the actual impact that it has. And but if somebody is treated less favourably because they're not attractive, then that's not covered. So it's very important to go back to this list. This is the only grounds for which a claim of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 can be brought. Now I'm going to say a little bit more about disability and religion and belief because they're too protected characteristics that are a little bit more complicated than the others. But before I do that, I just want to wish down this least and just pull out a number of other important points about some of the protected characteristics with age. It's important to remember that this is saying it's unlawful to treat somebody unfavorably because they're owned or because they're young. It's protecting both ends of the spectrum. Gender reassignment applies right from the beginning of the process, so somebody does engage with gender reassignment reassignment. They first of all have to live as a person of the sex to which they want to transition on. They have to do so before there is any chemical or surgical intervention. And so the protection is from the whole process on the individual doesn't have to be under medical supervision. Toe have that protection, but it is just gender reassignment. If there is somebody who, for example, likes to cross dress, then that is uncovered. Marital status. Civil partnership countries somebody less favorably because they're married all because they're in a civil partnership. But it doesn't extend to not treating somebody less favorably because they're engaged because their single, because they're in a common law relationship because they're living together that's not covered on race, is defined as ethnic origin, nationality and color, and that is a definition within the equality at 2010 on just to note that sexual orientation just applies to homosexuality. Heterosexuality on bisexuality it doesn't apply to any other sexual preferences. There's, I said. I just want to spend a moment looking at disability on religion and belief in a bit more detail because they're the ones that are a little bit more complicated. I was going to start off with disability on and the world disability can be used quite broadly that somebody could be classed as disabled in terms of getting benefits. But what is important if they're going to bring a claim under the equality at 2010 is that they are disabled as defined in that act. On. That is not necessarily the same as the definition for claiming benefits. So the definition is a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day to day activities. Long term means that the illness see injury, whatever it is has lasted for at least 12 months or is going to last for at least 12 months in medical opinion or it is terminal on a normal day to day activities are not defined in the law but are interpreted quite broadly. So it's the ability to do normal things, such as being able to stand to sit toe, have manual dexterity to see to hear. But those are normal day to day activities and cancer. Multiple sclerosis, HIV and AIDS are covered from the date of diagnosis. Regardless of house serious, the symptoms are on the duty on the employer. If somebody is disabled, as defined in the equality of 2010 is to make reasonable adjustments to help that individual toe overcome. The disadvantage that the disability is is giving our individual. So if, for example, somebody applies for a job, they don't have to disclose in their application that they are disabled. And, of course, Noel Disabilities are obvious. If somebody comes to an interview in the world share, it's quite likely that they're going to be disabled. But there were a lot of other disabilities that that are official. The employers should know ask questions about health prior to making an offer of employment unless there is very good reason to do so. And if the individuals offered the job and then says, Right, I'd like to accept job and by the way, UN disabled. The employer must then make reasonable adjustments in the same way. If there is an employee who becomes ill or is injured on Deniz disabled as defined in the equality of 20 term, the employer is required to make reasonable adjustments and it is reasonable, say the employer is not required. Teoh make any adjustment. It's got to be reasonable bearing in mind the size and resources of the business, then religion. Belief Now, religion. Part of this definition is probably not too complicated. I don't think we're going to fall out. If I say that Christianity seekers, a Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, our religions. I think we over are going to agree on that. Where becomes a little bit more complicated is belief on religion and belief for defined as any religion, religious or philosophical belief on a belief must have an impact on the way that the individual lives their life and must be worthy of respect in a democratic society. On things like vegetarianism, a belief in the importance of the environment, a belief in ethical journalism, our belief in animal rights have all found been found to be beliefs as defined in this heading. Let's take the example of the environment, maybe to explain this in a little bit more detail. And this comes from a case of Nicholson versus Granger PLC on In this case, E employees had been made redundant and he was head of sustainability at Granger's, which is a property development company. And he said the reason that he had been selected for redundancy waas his belief in the importance of the environment. I'm sure that many of us are concerned about the impact that we as humans have had on the environment. Andi probably do our bit. I recycle, and I put out my recycling bins every fortnight as I'm required to do. But does that really have an impact on the way I live my life? It did for Nicholson. He wouldn't drive a car because of the impact that the emissions have on the environment. You wouldn't go on an airplane for the same reasons. Hey had a number of ICO features in his house. He recycled, yes, but but hardly sent anything. Landfill. His beliefs was so important they had an impact on the way that he lived his life. So a belief has got to be something Mawr than something that we might vaguely think is a good idea has got to be something that's important people. Andi, if they have such a belief on it, is classed as a belief under the equality at 2010 they mustn't be treated less favourably because of it. So they are our nine protected characteristics. Let's now look at other types of disagree discrimination on. First of all, we're going to look at direct Andi within that look a associative and perceptive on direct discrimination and is probably the one that is most straightforward. Toe understand on that is treating somebody less favorably because of a protected characteristic. So, for example, this is deciding not to promote somebody because they're a woman or not to allow somebody to go on a training course because of their race on direct discrimination cannot be justified apart from some very limited situations relating to age, where, for example, to give somebody a job would mean that by the time they had qualified they might be very close to retirement, although that is a difficult argument put forward because, of course, we don't have a retirement age in the UK, apart from some very limited jobs where it's not appropriate, allow somebody toe work beyond a certain age. So direct discrimination is treating somebody less favorably because of a protected characteristic. There are some situations where it might be appropriate to say we do need somebody with a particular protected character is sick, and this is called occupational requirements. When the nature of the job means there is a requirement toe. Have somebody with certain characteristics. There is a limited range of occupational requirements. They will be things like where job involves giving intimate care to someone where it might be appropriate to have somebody of the same sex giving that care or where there is a dramatic issue. So, for example, or modeling. So, for example, if you were among a retailer of lingerie on, you wanted somebody to model the lingerie to say that you want a woman to do that. Rather, the man would be an occupational requirement, but cameras be taken with occupational requirements. Their limited Andi, they're not commonly applied. Quite simply, take away the message that direct discrimination is not allowed now, a social different perceptive discrimination of both forms of direct discrimination. So associative discrimination is treating somebody less favorably because of who they associate with. So a good example here would be refusing to recruit somebody because they had a disabled child. So they associate with somebody who has a protected characteristic of disability. Because of that, you're treating them less favorably. That's associative. Discrimination on that is unlawful. We also have perceptive discrimination as a form of direct discrimination. On this is treating somebody less favorably because it is perceived that they have a certain protected characteristic, even if they don't. So, for example, you might have somebody apply for a job from their application on their name. You presume that they are of a particular race, and you decide I'm not going to interview that person because of their race. Now it might be that they are not of the race that you think on your perception is wrong. But that doesn't matter if the reason is that you haven't offered them an interview because of your perception of their race, that would be perceptive discrimination. So that's direct discrimination. And then we come to indirect discrimination, which is applying a provisional criterion or practice to all which is more difficult for a group with a particular protective characteristic to comply with is to the detriment of an individual. And it's not portion it means of achieving a legitimate aim. What does that mean? Well, maybe the best way to explain it is for me to look at a case on going to look at the case of asked me versus Kirk, please. Metropolitan Borough Council 2000 and seven and in this case asked me, was a Muslim lady. She applied for a job as a teaching assistant, working with Children in a school with behavior, Andi for Children with behavior and communication difficulties. When she applied for the job she wore he job, which is available, that covers the hair. She got the job, and when she turned up for work, she was wearing the burqa, which is the full veil but also covers the face. And she said that when she went for the interview, she wasn't aware that she would be working with a man on because of her religion. She was a Muslim, as I say, Um, she should wear the burka on the school, said No, because when we communicate, we use words. But we also use facial expressions. Andi, when we communicate to understand a person, we do look at the keys that that come from their face on the way that they are talking to us on day. These Children have got difficulties anyway, and and to take away that whole Q of your face is actually going to make it more difficult for them. And she said, Well, I'm sorry, but I'm wearing the burger And they said, Well, in which case you can't have the job And she said, That's in direct religious discrimination. So let's have a look at the definition, the provision criterion or practice supply toe all yet what they were saying, WAAS. Everyone has got the have their face visible. That was a provision in criterion or practice. The requirement, if you like that, is more difficult for Muslim ladies to comply with, because as a religious group, they might wear a burka. Of course, they don't all. It was definitely to the detriment of as me as an individual, because she has been told, you can't have the chilled. Is it a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Can it be justified and hear? What the school was saying is a legitimate aim is that you can communicate clearly with the Children. Andi, saying that you've gotta have your face visible, is a proportionate means of achieving that very important aim of being able to communicate clearly on. They were able to shave their Children struggled mawr. Maybe adults struggle Maura's well, I'm not sure, but the Children would struggle more if asthma's face was covered on. Therefore, on that basis, her claim of indirect discrimination was unsuccessful on when When you think it is, this direct is an indirect direct is treating somebody less favorably because off a protected characteristic. So if that's said to ask me, we're not recruiting you because you're a Muslim that would have been direct discrimination. But they didn't say that. Indirect is when some requirement provisioned criterion or practice is put in place, and it's more difficult for a group with a particular protected characteristic to comply. And then finally, some other forms of discrimination first, well, we have harassment on this is unwanted conduct relating to a pathetic characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual on harassment is a form of discrimination. Andi. It is engaging in some sort of conduct that is violating the dignity of the individual, creating this unacceptable environment. We also have victimization on this is treating somebody less favorably because they have previously made a complaint of discrimination, or they have supported somebody who has made such a complaint. And this could be, for example, saying somebody. Well, I'm not giving you a reference for another job because you brought a claim of discrimination against us, and therefore I feel unable to write a positive reference that would be victimization. Then, finally, we have discrimination arising from disability on this is treating somebody less favorably because of something they do or they don't do. Because of their disability, for example, it could be giving a disciplinary warning to somebody who makes a lot of spelling mistakes. Andi, they have dyslexia on the dyslexia is sufficiently bad for it to be classed as a disability under the equality at 2010 and so actually, the reason that they're making the spelling mistakes is a dyslexia so that would be discrimination arising from disability, treating them less favorably because of something that is related to their disability. Now, if an individual is thinks that they've been discriminated against, they bring a claim to the employment tribunal on that has to be brought within three months of the event of discrimination occurring, or if it's an ongoing series of of events within three months of the last occasion that the disability occurred on. If they are successful in winning a claim of discrimination, whether that's direct, indirect harassment, victimization, associative, perceptible, disagree, discrimination arising from disability. If their claim is successful, then the amount of compensation that they can receive is no limited. So I hope you found that useful and you now have a better understanding of the law relating to discrimination. Thank you.