Employment Law (LLB) - Discrimination

HideShow resource information
What section and statute refers to the protected characteristics and what are they? (1)
Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 - age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientaion
1 of 29
What section of the Equality Act defines race? (2)
Section 9(1) states that race includes (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins . . . (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person’s racial group is a reference to a racial
2 of 29
Question continued... (3)
... group into which the person falls.
3 of 29
What section of the Equality Act defines religion as a protected characteristic? (4)
Section 10(1) of the EQA states that Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion. (2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a la
4 of 29
Question continued... (5)
... lack of belief.
5 of 29
What does section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 state? (6)
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.
6 of 29
What section of the Equality Act 2010 defines sexual orientation? (7)
s. 12 (1) Sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards – (a) persons of the same sex, (b) persons of the opposite sex, or (c) persons of either sex.
7 of 29
What does the case of Mandla v Dowell Lee (1983) show? (8)
This case held that Sikhs were a racial group within the meaning of s9(3). This is because they had a long shared history, they had a shared language, a unique cultural tradition, they came from similar geographical area, minority group etc.
8 of 29
What case held that where there is no group language or descent the group is essentially a religious sect such a Rastafarians? (9)
Dawkins v Crown Suppliers (1993)
9 of 29
What did the case of R v Governing Body of Jews Free School 2010 show? (10)
The Supreme Court interpreted s9(1) of the Equality Act 2010 even more widely to interpret 'ethnic origin' as being able to discriminate because of who they are descended from.
10 of 29
What did the case of Baggs v Fudge (2005) show? (11)
This case was struck out because fascism was not held to be a similar philisophical belief to a religious one. Reg 2(1) Employment Equality (Relgion or belief) Regs 2003. S10 of the EQA now has a separate section for philosophical beliefs.
11 of 29
What does the case of Nicholson v Grainger Plc and Others [2010] show? (11A)
This case gave guidance on what is a philosophical belief. It must be genuinely held, a belief and not a view point, it has to be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, it has to have a certain level of seriousness, cohesion
12 of 29
Question continued... (11B)
cogency and importance, it has to be worthy of respect in a democratic society and be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
13 of 29
What key statute applies to direct discrimination and what does it state? (12)
S13(1) states A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others . . . (5) If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment
14 of 29
Direct discrimination now also includes discrimination by association and discrimination by perceived characteristics. Give case example. (12A)
Coleman v Attridge Law and another [2006] - treating a non-disabled person in the case less favourably because of their association with a disabled person is illegal.
15 of 29
Question continued... (13)
less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others. (6) If the protected characteristic is sex – (a) less favourable treatment of a woman includes less favourable treatment of her because she is breast-feeding; (b) in a case where B is a
16 of 29
Question continued... (14)
man, no account is to be taken of special treatment afforded to a woman in connection with pregnancy or childbirth.
17 of 29
It must be shown that there was less favourable treatment. What does this mean and what have the courts interpreted this to mean? (15)
Initially the courts stated that you must use the 'but for' test to decipher whether less favourable treatment had occurred. In James v Eastleigh BC (1990) it was held that 'but for' the claimant's sex he would not have had to pay for admission.
18 of 29
Question continued... (16)
Held: Direct discrimination. This is no longer how the courts decipher whether less favourable treatment took place. In Shamoon v RUC (2003) it was held that they must ask the reason why. 1. Whether less favourable treatment occurred 2. in this case
19 of 29
Question continued... (17)
whether it was on the grounds of sex. In R v Governing Body of Jews Free School (2010) It was held that to find for direct discrimination you must ask the question was there less favourable treatment and look at the reason why. If it is not clear why
20 of 29
Question continued... (18)
in relation to a protected characteristic the courts must examine the reason for them acting the way they did on an objective basis.
21 of 29
There is a requirement of a comparator. What section states this and what happens if there is no comparator?
Section 23(1) states that it is for the employee to compare him or herself with a 'hypothetical' comparator if there is not one in the workplace for the purposes of establishing less favourable treatment. In the selection of a fictitious comparator
22 of 29
Question continued... (20)
the relevant circumstances in the case must be the same or not materially different.
23 of 29
What provision relates to indirect discrimination and what does it state? (21)
(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion
24 of 29
Question continued... (22)
or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s if – (a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the
25 of 29
Question continued... (23)
characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
26 of 29
What is meant by the term 'provision, criterion or practice?' (24)
This has replaced the words'requirement or condition' which originally featured in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976. This required the claimant to show an absolute bar by the employer upon compliance. In Perera v Civil
27 of 29
Question continued... (25)
Service Commission (1983) it was held that this was an exceptionally high hurdle for the claimants to meet and so this as relaxed. The claimant now only needs to show that a criterion, provision or practice affects them.
28 of 29
What does the case of English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2008] show?
This case refers to direct discrimination because of a perceived characteristic.
29 of 29

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What section of the Equality Act defines race? (2)

Back

Section 9(1) states that race includes (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins . . . (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person’s racial group is a reference to a racial

Card 3

Front

Question continued... (3)

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What section of the Equality Act defines religion as a protected characteristic? (4)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Question continued... (5)

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Employment law resources »