nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE: 12.04.11
PRESENTED BY:
Andy Jamieson - DirectorKeeley Baigent - Director
Jo McCarthy - Associate
![Page 2: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What’s not coming into force this April?
1. The Bribery Act - now 1 July 20112. Right to request time off for training will not be extended to SME’s3. Right to request flexible working will not be extended to parents of children under 18.4. Specific public sector equality duties deferred until July 2011.
![Page 3: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What’s new?•From 1 April 2011 a moratorium exempting micro and start-up businesses from new domestic legislation began
–“micro” – Businesses with fewer than 10 employees–“start up” – Those which have commenced a trade, profession or vocation after 1 April 2011
•Moratorium will last for 3 years therefore exempting qualifying businesses from the proposed flexible shared parental leave scheme and extension of flexible working rights.
![Page 4: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
What’s new?
• Additional paternity leave and pay
–The Additional Paternity Leave Regulations 2010–The Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (General) Regulations 2010 came into force on 6 April 2011
• Apply to children due (or matched for adoption) on or after 3 April 2011.
![Page 5: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
What’s new?
•Under the new Regulations a mother will be able to transfer up to 6 months maternity leave to the father.
•Some of the leave may be paid if taken during the 39 week maternity pay period.
•Statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay increased from £124.88 to £128.73 from 6 April 2011.
![Page 6: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
What’s new?On 5 April 2011 general public sector equality duty
came into force.
Requires public bodies and others who exercise public functions
• To have due regard to need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
• To advance equality of opportunity• To foster good relations between people who share a
protected characteristic and those who don’t
![Page 7: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
What’s new?
From 6 April 2011 the default retirement age was phased out and the statutory
retirement procedure abolished.
![Page 8: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
What’s new?
s.159 Equality Act brought into force from 6 April 2011.
• Provides for positive action in recruitment and promotion.
• Allows an employer to take a protected characteristic into account if he thinks people with that characteristic are under represented in the workforce or suffer a disadvantage.
![Page 9: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Positive action provisions only exercisable where:
• the person in question is “as qualified as” other applicants to be recruited or promoted.
• The employer does not already have a positive action policy in place for dealing with recruitment and promotion.
• The more favourable treatment is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of overcoming or minimising disadvantage or encouraging participation.
What’s new?
![Page 10: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The Equality Act Codes of Practice came into force on 6 April 2011.
• Give guidance on all the protected characteristics recognised in the Equality Act.
• New codes will be admissible as evidence in Tribunal proceedings.
What’s new?
![Page 11: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tax changes for post termination payments after P45 has been issued.
• Previously such payments made under Compromise Agreements were taxed at basic rate.
• Are taxed at same rate as if payment made during course of employment.
What’s new?
![Page 12: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
On the horizonBribery Act 2010.
• Coming into force 1 July 2011.• Outlaws “bribery” i.e. giving someone a
financial or other advantage to encourage that person to perform their functions or activities improperly or to reward that person for having already done so.
![Page 13: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Your organisation can be liable if a senior person, such as the MD, commits a bribery offence.
• Liability will also arise where employer or agent pays a bribe specifically to get or keep business or gain a business advantage.
• To be prosecuted DPP or Director of Serious Fraud Office must be satisfied that conviction more likely than not and that prosecution in public interest.
On the horizon: Bribery Act 2010
![Page 14: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
• No offence committed where business can show it had adequate procedures in place to prevent bribery.
• What counts as adequate depends on the bribery risks you face.
• Act recognises 6 principles in assessing risk
On the horizon: Bribery Act 2010
![Page 15: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The 6 principles in assessing risk:
1. Proportionality• Action you take should be proportionate to risk
2. Top level commitment
3. Risk assessment
4. Due diligence
5. Communication
6. Monitoring and review
On the horizon: Bribery Act 2010
![Page 16: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
AGE, SEX AND DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION Presented by
Keeley Baigent
![Page 17: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONHave any job applicants succeeded in claims for discriminatory job adverts?
Berry –v- Recruitment Revolution [2010]
“Junior Administrator” suitable for “a school leaver / someone who had recently taken A’Levels”
ET – claim failedClaimant had not applied so had not been disadvantaged / suffered a detriment
EAT agreed Warning given: “those who try to exploit legislation for financial gain were liable to have costs awarded against them”
![Page 18: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONKeane –v- Investigo & Others [2010]
Job vacancies clearly aimed at recently qualified accountants
Keane over qualified
ET – claim failedApplications were not genuine so claimant not disadvantaged / suffered detriment
EAT agreed“An applicant who is not considered for a job in which he or she is not interested cannot in any ordinary sense of the word be said to have suffered a detriment or been disadvantaged”
![Page 19: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONNot calling key witnesses to give evidence or preparing your defence in a reasonable manner could mean you end up on the back foot
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce –v- Beck [2010]
Beck found to have suffered age discrimination
Burden of proof shifted to employer
Bank’s failure to call key witness hampered Bank’s chances of rebutting discrimination
![Page 20: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONWas a fixed retirement age of 65 years old for partners justified?
Seldon –v- Clarkson Wright & Jakes & Another [2010]
ET accepted 3 legitimate aims:
(i) giving senior solicitors opportunity of partnership so ensuring that they didn’t leave (ii) facilitating partnership & work force planning & (iii) limiting need to expel partners by way of performance
management so contributing to congenial & supportive culture
![Page 21: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONET held retirement at 65 to be a proportionate means of achieving firm’s legitimate aims
EAT agreed except that:
held retirement age of 65 didn’t justify 3rd aim as no evidence that performance tended to decline at that age
CofA:
Confirmed that employer’s aim does not have to pursue a social policy objective to be legitimate
![Page 22: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONMere fact that employer might have chosen higher retirement age could not result in retirement age of 65 not being justified
DRA of 65 for employees supported choice of retirement age of 65
Note:
Decision and reasoning important for employers who wish to justify retention of a fixed retirement age for employees
![Page 23: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
AGE DISCRIMINATIONCan cost alone justify a decision to discriminate?
Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust [2010]
Dismissal of W was justified
Legitimate aim being pursued was: “to bring about Mr W's dismissal for redundancy and to avoid the additional costs to the Trust of his attaining the age of 50 before the end of his notice period and thus being entitled to enhanced payment"
W's dismissal without consultation was a proportionate means of achieving that aim
![Page 24: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION
Are older women more at risk of discrimination than others?
O’Reilly –v- British Broadcasting Corporation & Another [2011]
The facts:
Network wanted to “refresh” the presenter line up for countryfile
Majority of 2nd tier presenters chosen in their mid 30s & O not considered
Leakage of ageism complaints to media
![Page 25: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The decision:
Combined discrimination protected
BBC’s failure to consider O as 2nd tier presenter direct age discrimination not justified
Wish to appeal to younger viewers was a legitimate aim
Choosing younger presenters did not satisfy aim
Not proportionate to pander to assumed prejudice of younger viewers
SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION
![Page 26: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
SEX DISCRIMINATIONSurely if an employee participates in ‘sexual banter’ they can’t then claim they have been sexually harassed
Munchkins Restaurant Ltd and another v Karmazyn and others [2010]
Some of the inappropriate conversations were initiated by the Claimants
Despite this held that Claimants been sexually harassed
Respondents held jointly & severally liable for awards
Each Claimant awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings
![Page 27: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
SEX DISCRIMINATIONGossip about ‘whose the father’ could get employers into hot water!
Nixon v Ross Coates Solicitors and Anor [2010]
EAT found:
Gossip was pregnancy related, it was unwanted & Claimant found it distressing
Therefore it amounted to harassment
![Page 28: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
SEX DISCRIMINATIONNot even the lawyers get it right all the time!
De Belin v Eversheds Legal Services Ltd [2011]
The Facts:
Female colleague couldn’t be assessed against redundancy selection criterion as on maternity leave during assessment period
Female colleague given maximum notional score against the criterion
Resulted in B being selected for redundancy
![Page 29: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
SEX DISCRIMINATIONET:
Meaning of ‘special treatment’ considered
Didn’t extend to giving female colleague maximum notional score
B held to have been discriminated against on grounds of sex & unfairly dismissed
B awarded £123,053 compensation
![Page 30: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
SEX DISCRIMINATIONEAT:
Agreed with ET
Special treatment only extends to what is 'reasonably necessary to compensate for disadvantages occasioned by condition'
Benefit offered not reasonably necessary
Less discriminatory alternatives available
![Page 31: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
SEX DISCRIMINATIONCan a man claim pregnancy related discrimination because of his association with his pregnant partner? He can try:
Kulikaoskas v MacDuff Shellfish and another [2010]
K claimed had been dismissed because of his partner’s pregnancy
ET dismissed claims
EAT agreed with ET
SDA should not cover ‘associative pregnancy discrimination’
Associative pregnancy discrimination may be protected under the Equality Act 2010
![Page 32: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Guidance on determining whether a mental illness could amount to a protected disability
J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010]
Mental impairment does not have to be clinically recognised
Clinical depression amounts to an impairment
Medicalisation of work events does not
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
![Page 33: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIONEAT held:
ET erred in considering mental impairment before effect
Consider adverse effect on ability to carry out normal day-to day-activities 1st
Consider question of impairment 2nd
If 1st consideration satisfied may follow impairment suffered
May make it easier to show mental impairment amounts to a disability
![Page 34: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIONHow far does an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments go?
Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v Jelic [2010]
EAT held:
Duty to make reasonable adjustment extended to swapping jobs of disabled and non disabled employees
Accepted that this would not be a reasonable adjustment in every case
![Page 35: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Unfair dismissal, religious discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination
Presented by
Jo McCarthy
![Page 36: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 37: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Humour and the band of reasonable
responsesHow far will the band stretch?
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 38: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
The caseBowater v Northwest London
Hospital Trust
(2011) EWCA Civ 63
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 39: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
The Facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 40: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
The “Lewd remark”…
“It’s been a few months since I’ve been in this position”
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 41: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Legal issues arising
• ET found unfair but overturned by EAT
• CA reversed decision
• The “elastic band”
• “majority of public” would have found funny
• ET must not substitute their own opinion
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 42: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Comment
This case may signify the return of an element of pragmatism to the ET, and an abatement of po-faced political correctness.
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 43: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Investigation, Investigation, Investigation…..
Can there ever be too much?
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 44: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
The Case
Salford Royal NHR Foundation Trust v Roldan (2010)EWCA Civ
522
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 45: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
The facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 46: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Legal issues arising
• The more serious the consequences of the dismissal the more investigation required
• Where consequences are very serious may have to give benefit of doubt to the employee
• Principles in A v B EAT 2003 IRLR 405 developed further
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 47: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Comment/Practical tips
• Make sure you have a thorough audit trail of investigation
• If in doubt, investigate further
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 48: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
“You must be poking!”
Issues around social networking
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 49: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
The case
Gill v SAS Ground Services UK Limited ET/2705021/09
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 50: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
The facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 51: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
The legal analysis
• Social networking issues are tricky and relatively new
• Balance to be struck between respective rights of employee and employer
• Consider what are legitimate concerns• Put in place appropriate policies to guide
staff
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 52: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Issues in relation to representation at internal
hearings
Representation
![Page 53: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Hand holding…
Representation
![Page 54: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
The case
Governors of X School v R
Representation
![Page 55: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
The facts
Representation
![Page 56: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
The legal analysis
• Article 6 ECHR gives right to a fair trial
• Directly enforceable against state employees
• Tribunal must make decisions taking HRA into account
• Must be more than just losing “job”
Representation
![Page 57: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Comment/Practical tips
• Be prepared to be flexible• Remember duty of reasonable adjustment
(EA 2010)• Legally qualified reps only where career is
at stake (FSA, social worker, doctor etc)• Be wary of troublesome spouses and over
protective mothers
Representation
![Page 58: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Religious Discrimination
![Page 59: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Case law developments
• Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 are now part of the Equality Act
• Slow start with claims
• Now on the increase – over 20% increase in 2010
Religious Discrimination
![Page 60: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Good news and bad news for employers
Religious Discrimination
![Page 61: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Bad news(but good news for
witches, UFO geeks and Swampy!)
The breadth of beliefs covered under the Regulations is
increasing beyond belief (!)
Religious Discrimination
![Page 62: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Good News
The Courts appear to be recognising the distinction
between holding a protected belief per se and the manner in which
that belief is manifested
Religious Discrimination
![Page 63: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Some cases
Believe it or not……
Religious Discrimination
![Page 64: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
The case
Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority EAT 0087/10
Religious Discrimination
![Page 65: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
The Facts
Religious Discrimination
![Page 66: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
The legal analysis
The EAT found “his beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society, and had sufficient cohesion and cogency to be a philosophical belief under the Regs”
Religious Discrimination
![Page 67: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Legal analysis…
EAT used the five key characteristics identified in Grainger v Nicholson setting out what a philosophical belief must have if it is to be protected
Religious Discrimination
![Page 68: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Grainger v Nicholson•Genuinely held•Not an opinion or viewpoint•Related to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour•Cogent, serious, cohesive and important with a similar status to religion•Worthy of respect in a democratic society without conflicting with the fundamental rights of others
Religious Discrimination
![Page 69: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
He failed at the second hurdle – see Daily Mail
reports
Religious Discrimination
![Page 70: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Comment/Practical tip –Call Ghostbusters
Religious Discrimination
![Page 71: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
The Thrill of the Chase
Religious Discrimination
![Page 72: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
The Case
Hashman v Orchard Park Garden Centre
Religious Discrimination
![Page 73: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
The Facts
Religious Discrimination
![Page 74: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
The Legal Analysis
ET found on 11.3.11 that “(he) had established that (his) beliefs in the sanctity of life and the moral duty to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals constituted a philosophical belief for the purpose of protection under the Equality Act “
Religious Discrimination
![Page 75: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Manifestation of beliefThe foregoing cases establish the right to hold a belief is absolutely protected but recent case law has demonstrated that the manifestation of that belief is not afforded the same level of protection
Religious Discrimination
![Page 76: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
The Cases
• Ladele v LB of Islington and anor 2010 ICR 532
• Rao v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust 1901029/09
Religious Discrimination
![Page 77: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Comment
• Victory for common sense?• Recognition of mismatch between holding
a belief and carrying out of duties• Latter has to prevail• Religion/belief prevents performance of
duties = less favourable treatment not on grounds of religion/belief
Religious Discrimination
![Page 78: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Religious iconography or clothing
• Well publicised area• By and large it will be (generally indirect)
discrimination to prohibit the display of religous iconography or clothing where it does not impede one’s duties.
• Fine lines often need to be drawn – see following cases
![Page 79: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
• Chaplin v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust 1702886/09
• Germain v Home Office 2306431/06
Religious iconography or clothing
![Page 80: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Consider……..
Religious iconography or clothing
![Page 81: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 82: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Case law developments
• Cases involving services have dominated the headlines
• Employment related claims still on the increase by 18%
• Two cases of interest ….
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 83: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
The Cases
• HM Land Registry v Grant 2010 IRLR 583
• Facts
• Practical tip! Policies should emphasise need for discretion and potentially harmful effects of gossip
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 84: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
• Job Centre Plus v McCarthy EAT 0419/09
• Facts
• Practical tip! Consistency with investigations/disciplinary sanctions where dealing with employees with protected characteristics
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 85: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Protecting employees from harassment by customers/service users /third parties
![Page 86: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
S 40 Eq A• S40 extends liability of employers for persistent
harassment of employees by third parties (previously only applied to sex discrimination)
• “persistent” amounts to “at least two occasions”• Doesn’t have to be the same person• Remedies are the same as for all other forms of
discrimination
Protecting employees from harassment
![Page 87: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
S 40 EqA – Practical tips
• Put policies in place
• Display notices to public/service users
• Train managers not to ignore complaints
• Generally put in place your “reasonable steps” defence
Protecting employees from harassment
![Page 88: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 89: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Humour and the band of reasonable
responsesHow far will the band stretch?
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 90: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
The caseBowater v Northwest London
Hospital Trust
(2011) EWCA Civ 63
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 91: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
The Facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 92: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
The “Lewd remark”…
“It’s been a few months since I’ve been in this position”
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 93: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Legal issues arising
• ET found unfair but overturned by EAT
• CA reversed decision
• The “elastic band”
• “majority of public” would have found funny
• ET must not substitute their own opinion
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 94: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Comment
This case may signify the return of an element of pragmatism to the ET, and an abatement of po-faced political correctness.
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 95: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Investigation, Investigation, Investigation…..
Can there ever be too much?
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 96: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
The Case
Salford Royal NHR Foundation Trust v Roldan (2010)EWCA Civ
522
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 97: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
The facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 98: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
Legal issues arising
• The more serious the consequences of the dismissal the more investigation required
• Where consequences are very serious may have to give benefit of doubt to the employee
• Principles in A v B EAT 2003 IRLR 405 developed further
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 99: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Comment/Practical tips
• Make sure you have a thorough audit trail of investigation
• If in doubt, investigate further
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 100: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
“You must be poking!”
Issues around social networking
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 101: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
The case
Gill v SAS Ground Services UK Limited ET/2705021/09
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 102: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
The facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 103: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
The legal analysis
• Social networking issues are tricky and relatively new
• Balance to be struck between respective rights of employee and employer
• Consider what are legitimate concerns• Put in place appropriate policies to guide
staff
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 104: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
Issues in relation to representation at internal
hearings
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 105: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
Hand holding…
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 106: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
The case
Governors of X School v R
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 107: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
The facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 108: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
The legal analysis
• Article 6 ECHR gives right to a fair trial
• Directly enforceable against state employees
• Tribunal must make decisions taking HRA into account
• Must be more than just losing “job”
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 109: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
Comment/Practical tips
• Be prepared to be flexible• Remember duty of reasonable adjustment
(EA 2010)• Legally qualified reps only where career is
at stake (FSA, social worker, doctor etc)• Be wary of troublesome spouses and over
protective mothers
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 110: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Religious Discrimination
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 111: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
Case law developments
• Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 are now part of the Equality Act
• Slow start with claims
• Now on the increase – over 20% increase in 2010
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 112: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
Good news and bad news for employers
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 113: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
Bad news(but good news for
witches, UFO geeks and Swampy!)
The breadth of beliefs covered under the Regulations is
increasing beyond belief (!)
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 114: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
Good News
The Courts appear to be recognising the distinction
between holding a protected belief per se and the manner in which
that belief is manifested
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 115: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
Some cases
Believe it or not……
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 116: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
The case
Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority EAT 0087/10
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 117: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
The Facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 118: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
The legal analysis
The EAT found “his beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society, and had sufficient cohesion and cogency to be a philosophical belief under the Regs”
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 119: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
Legal analysis…
EAT used the five key characteristics identified in Grainger v Nicholson setting out what a philosophical belief must have if it is to be protected
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 120: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
Grainger v Nicholson•Genuinely held•Not an opinion or viewpoint•Related to a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour•Cogent, serious, cohesive and important with a similar status to religion•Worthy of respect in a democratic society without conflicting with the fundamental rights of others
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 121: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
He failed at the second hurdle – see Daily Mail
reports
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 122: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
Comment/Practical tip –Call Ghostbusters
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 123: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
The Thrill of the Chase
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 124: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
The Case
Hashman v Orchard Park Garden Centre
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 125: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
The Facts
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 126: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
The Legal Analysis
ET found on 11.3.11 that “(he) had established that (his) beliefs in the sanctity of life and the moral duty to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals constituted a philosophical belief for the purpose of protection under the Equality Act “
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 127: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
Manifestation of beliefThe foregoing cases establish the right to hold a belief is absolutely protected but recent case law has demonstrated that the manifestation of that belief is not afforded the same level of protection
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 128: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/128.jpg)
The Cases
• Ladele v LB of Islington and anor 2010 ICR 532
• Rao v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust 1901029/09
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 129: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/129.jpg)
Comment
• Victory for common sense?• Recognition of mismatch between holding
a belief and carrying out of duties• Latter has to prevail• Religion/belief prevents performance of
duties = less favourable treatment not on grounds of religion/belief
Unfair Dismissal
![Page 130: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/130.jpg)
Religious iconography or clothing
• Well publicised area• By and large it will be (generally indirect)
discrimination to prohibit the display of religous iconography or clothing where it does not impede one’s duties.
• Fine lines often need to be drawn – see following cases
![Page 131: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/131.jpg)
• Chaplin v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust 1702886/09
• Germain v Home Office 2306431/06
Religious iconography or clothing
![Page 132: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/132.jpg)
Consider……..
Religious iconography or clothing
![Page 133: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/133.jpg)
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 134: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/134.jpg)
Case law developments
• Cases involving services have dominated the headlines
• Employment related claims still on the increase by 18%
• Two cases of interest ….
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 135: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/135.jpg)
The Cases
• HM Land Registry v Grant 2010 IRLR 583
• Facts
• Practical tip! Policies should emphasise need for discretion and potentially harmful effects of gossip
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 136: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/136.jpg)
• Job Centre Plus v McCarthy EAT 0419/09
• Facts
• Practical tip! Consistency with investigations/disciplinary sanctions where dealing with employees with protected characteristics
Sexual orientation discrimination
![Page 137: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/137.jpg)
Protecting employees from harassment by customers/service users /third parties
![Page 138: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/138.jpg)
S 40 Eq A• S40 extends liability of employers for persistent
harassment of employees by third parties (previously only applied to sex discrimination)
• “persistent” amounts to “at least two occasions”• Doesn’t have to be the same person• Remedies are the same as for all other forms of
discrimination
Protecting employees from harassment
![Page 139: Nelsons employment seminar 8.4.11](https://reader038.vdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022103113/5537f3fd4a79591b688b46b6/html5/thumbnails/139.jpg)
S 40 EqA – Practical tips
• Put policies in place
• Display notices to public/service users
• Train managers not to ignore complaints
• Generally put in place your “reasonable steps” defence
Protecting employees from harassment