”Lawyers claimed it would cost British businesses too much and lead to many more claims for compensation…”
Then the solution is simple – Don’t tolerate Discrimination in the workplace or any other.
If you do allow bigotry you should expect claims around discrimination. If there are too many – Tough Sh#t!
Come to Britain, and bring your bigoted working practices with you, says rich straight white male George Osbourne
Whilst I have sympathy in stopping us becoming a litigious state – the reality is that most of the cases of discrimination are because the claimant has genuine reason to perceive that they have been discriminated against. The best way to prevent litigation in this area is for organisations to condemn discrimination by its employees, create a tolerant and accepting workplace, and ensure that employees, customers etc. are protected from discrimination either by the organisation itself or those acting on its behalf.
Whilst it is true that many of those who do experience discrimination do so with regards one factor – race, sexuality, disability, gender etc. It is not an insignificant minority who have more than one ‘difference’ that can cause them to be subject of discriminatory actions. Its not just the HIV+ gay man or the black disabled person; it could be the elderly blind person or the transgender Jew etc etc. It seems to me that this proposal is prejudiced itself.
I might go a little further, Philip:
Come to Britain and bring your bigoted working practices and lack of customer care with you
says rich straight white able-bodied young male George Osborne
it only shows that the government cares more for money then fairness
John D is right anyway
And here it begins………………
This appears to be a bad decision. I thought that the ‘dual discrimination’ provisions were sensible and desirable.
The tories are at it again. It’ll be like 1984 again by the time we get them out of office.
I understand not that the Government is repealing existing legislation – rather that it is not bringing new provisions into force.
Not quite sure whether the Lib Dems are against discrimination or not. Take a look at Lynne Featherstone’s blog in December 2010 -
And then look at the comment by Dave Page, as well as the very next comment on Lynne’s blog which points out why there is no need to alter the original intention of the Bill.
In my view the Lib Dems are more interested in helping their Tory masters. This was unintentionally proved when an open mic caught an off-the-cuff comment by Nick Clegg after a joint Q&A session with David Cameron.
OK, just playing devil’s advocate here, if there’s discrimination either on grounds of sexuality or on HIV status, is there a tangeable difference between prosecuting employers on one or on both counts?
Surely discrimination is discrimination is discrimination whichever grounds it’s on?
Or is this simply to record the statistics in 2 categories rather than one?
Or is it because employers will just switch their defence strategy to whatever you’re not accusing them of?
Could someone explain the nuts and bolts of this distinction, cause I’m not quite seeing the issue.
Let us say a person who is male and muslim is refused entry to a shop because the people feel that muslim men are terrorists.
At present, the person would have to bring a claim that he was discriminated against either on the grounds of his gender (male) or on the grounds of his religion (muslim) or both individually.
The shop would be able to say that it did not discriminate against him on the grounds that he is male because it allows other (non muslim) men into the shop. It would then be able to say that it did not discriminate against him on the grounds that he is muslim because it allows (women) muslims into the shop.
The combined discrimination point would allow the person to claim that they had been discriminated against on the basis of a combined status of being both male and muslim rather than having to prove discrimination on just a singular ground.
That is true, but it applies in so many different senses …
For example, (based on a genuine case I am aware of from another country but could be applied here)
The gay HIV+ man who is refused access to a gym – where he could claim discrimination on the grounds of his orientation or his disability (being positive). The gym tried to claim they did not discriminate against gay men (because they allowed them to use the facilities other than communal showers!!!!) and also did not discriminate against people with disabilities for two reasons (one other disabilities did not have restrictions and positive people were permitted to use the cafe/bar!!!!). Suffice to say the gym lost on both counts and the court held that the guy had been discriminated in two separate manners which taken collectively demonstrated an aggravated level of prejudice from the gym.
Stu, What an appalling state of affairs.
For myself, I cannot see the logic in the government not implementing the dual discrimination sections of the Act. They appear to be reasonable and not to increase costs.
On this issue, the Government have gone badly wrong.
This is so stupid, so you would need to bring two court cases say one for race discrimination and the other for sexual orientation discrimination under how the Tories want the law to look like. We need the courts to work more effectively after the ConDems shut down lots of our smaller courts to save money.
Are they really saying Judges are fare too stupid to be able to handle multiple issues within cases!
No – you would bring one claim in the employment tribunal comprising two elements of discrimination.
> We need the courts to work more effectively after the ConDems shut down lots of our smaller courts to save money.
The employment tribunal service is not part of the closure programme. The closure programme affects magistrates’ courts and county courts only. It does not touch the employment tribunals service.
To help small businesses is good but in order to make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business does that not also mean being diverse also make it the best place. That means without discrimintion.
I think at a time when the government is telling us we should all work because it’s better and that people cannot live off benefits this is a bad move.
They need to rethink this.
The thing is its not cheaper for a company to face two separate claims for discrimination from the same person. The only winners will be the lawyers whom are the only peoples interest the government are protecting in this.
You would bring one claim in the employment tribunal comprising two elements of discrimination.
> The only winners will be the lawyers whom are the only peoples interest the government are protecting in this.
I really cannot understand the logic behind this remark. I cannot see any difference to lawyers whether they litigate a claim based on one protected ground rather than two.
If anything, lawyers would be losers from the government failing to implement the section as it may mean less cases.
Where is the legislation to make employers accountable for the workplace environment they offer and profit from?
And the ConDemn coalition is at it again, dismantling protections to facilitate bigotry.
Gay tories —> Duhhh
Didnt Cameron try and suggest he was more LGBT friendly …
The evidence is questionable …
Yes there has been some good suggestions (not action) but this dilution of rights to protection from discrimnation and prejudice is horrendous
The decision not to bring the dual discrimination provisions into force is, in my view, a bad decision. That should not detract from the protected ground of sexual orientation that remains in the Equality Act and that certainly has not been diluted.
The very fact that this government is in practice diluting civil rights protections should worry everyone, but their apologists are still burying their heads in the sand.
Berberts, you are so partisan as to lack credibility. We have all stated that this is a bad decision. However, it is also clear that the Government is diluting no existing protections.