Blog Site

Monday, September 3, 2007

Purity ring case makes the headlines

Schoolgirl Lydia Playfoot has lost her legal challenge over a ban preventing her from wearing a Christian "purity ring" in school.The High Court challenge is the latest in a series of high profile cases involving symbols of religion.

Last year, a row erupted when British Airways employee, Nadia Eweida, sought to wear a cross outside of her BA uniform and earlier this year a 12-year-old school girl failed in an attempt to challenge her school's ban on a full face veil.

Experts at leading law firm Brabners Chaffe Street, who run discriminationonline.com - the UK's first website dedicated to issues of discrimination in the workplace - said similar claims by employees are likely to become increasingly common.

Jonathan I'Anson, a partner at the firm, said: "We will see more of these types of cases and one by one the manifestations of each religion may well be looked at".

"Cases concerning religion and dress codes often turn on one issue - whether the wearing of a symbol of a religion, a ring or a cross for example, is a manifestation of the religion itself".

"It is up to the courts and tribunals to decide what is, and what is not, a manifestation of the religion in question."

The law protects people in the workplace from discrimination on the grounds of their religion or belief.

"Employers should ensure that they have clear dress codes in place which set out what is and is not acceptable in the workplace but do not breach the regulations".

In February, a 12-year-old schoolgirl failed in an attempt to legally challenge her school's ban on a full face veil. The school, in Buckinhamshire, had informed the girl that it was unacceptable for her to wear a niqab as the school believed it would make communication and learning difficult.

The Judge rejected her lawyer's arguments for a judicial review stressing the necessity to enforce a school uniform policy under which girls of different faiths would have a sense of equality and identity.

In January, British Airways announced it was changing its uniform policy to allow all religious symbols to be worn openly in the wake of the row over a worker's attempts to wear a cross.
BA had reportedly banned any jewellery being worn outside of its uniform, but allowed hijabs and turbans to be worn.

The Company had always argued it never intended to discriminate against Christians regarding it's policy on jewellery but was bound to follow discrimination laws to the letter.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Hundreds of workers sue over age discrimination

Almost 1000 workers in the UK are suing their bosses over ageism, it emerged today.

Around 950 claims have been filed since the introduction of new laws in October banning discrimination on the grounds of age, according to the Employment Tribunals Service.

Businesses could be facing compensation claims running into seven figures, according to experts at leading law firm Brabners Chaffe Street, who run discriminationonline.com - the UK's first website dedicated to issues of discrimination.

Employment lawyer Joe Shelston, an expert in age discrimination, said: "We receive a lot of queries from employers asking about job adverts and how they should be worded. If you look at most recruitment websites, you will still see adverts for young and dynamic staff, which on the face of it are unlawful. So far no-one has faced any action for this but it's only a matter of time.

"Other adverts which stress that a successful candidate needs 10 years experience also technically break the rules, as a younger candidate is less likely to meet that requirement.

"We haven't seen the impact we initially expected after the new laws were introduced, however, this may be due to the tribunal system. A lot of cases are working through the system and a typical discrimination case can take up to nine months, so we should see some big cases coming through soon."

Mr Shelston said employers needed to be "very, very careful" or face huge compensation claims.

He said: "The awards for age discrimination are uncapped so it is not unrealistic to see employers facing seven figure payouts.

"The days of replacing older, more expensive workers with someone twenty years younger are long gone. Employers need to be very, very careful."

The age debate hit the headlines last month after TV presenter Nick Ross resigned from Crimewatch in a row over ageism at the BBC. His shock resignation came only three months after veteran newsreader Moira Stuart was sidelined amid claims of ageism.

The cost to UK businesses of discriminating against staff has soared over recent years - and is predicted to rise yet further in 2007.

Latest figures suggest discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation cost the economy £320 million in 2006, a rise of 52 per cent.

And that figure is only likely to rise further following the introduction of laws to tackle age discrimination in October last year.

Around 23,000 discrimination related legal claims were brought in the UK last year.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Employers must protect employees from harassment from the public

The High Court has ruled, in judicial review proceedings brought by the equal opportunities commission, that the Government has failed to implement the Euoropean Equal Treatment Directive properly within the Employment Equality (sex discrimination) Rregulations 2005 so as to protect the rights of women.  

The High Court ruling makes it clear that UK Law must go beyond protecting women from abusive colleagues and extend this to protection from the behaviour of customers, clients and members of the public.

 Women and Men should be protected from harassment in any job where they meet the public, from pubs and hotels to hospitals and airports. The decision, in a challenge brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission could eventually prompt claims involving harassment of employees unless employers act quickly.

Although employers cannot eliminate the risks of claims entirely, the must now take steps to reduce harassment of employees and ensure that workers know how to react.   

A failure to do so will leave employers vulnerable to tribunal claims.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Schoolgirl looses veil case

A 12 year old school girl has failed in an attempt to legal challenge to her school's ban on a full face veil.

The school, in Buckinhamshire, had informed the girl that it was unacceptable for her to wear a niqab as the school believed it would make communication and learning difficult.

The Judge rejected her lawyer's arguments for a judicial review.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Silber stressed that he was dealing with one particular case and not the wider issue of where the niqab should be worn in schools or anywhere else.

Mr Justice Silber stated that the ban was "proportionate" in the light of certain factors including:-

• The veil prevented teachers from seeing a pupils facial expressions - a key element in effective classroom interaction;
• The necessity to enforce a school uniform policy under which girls of different faiths would have a sense of equality and identity

The girls' solicitor stated "we believe there are a number of errors in the decision that have led Mr Justice Silber to reach the wrong conclusions".

Last year, the law lords ruled that a Luton School was justified in banning the jilbab, a long gown.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Challenge to Default Retirement Age Suffers Setback

The legal challenge taken to the European Court of Justice by the interest group for older workers, Heyday, against the procedures contained in the new laws on Age Discrimination which allow employers to lawfully require employees to retire at 65 has suffered a significant setback.

Advocate General Jan Mazak has today delivered his opinion on a Spanish case concerning
national laws allowing compulsory retirement. The Advocate General's finding is that the European
Equal Treatment Directive which required the implementation of the new laws on age discrimination does not apply to the rules of Member States on the setting of retirement ages (rules which he felt were too closely linked to the areas of social and employment policy). The Advocate General went on to state that even if the Directive did apply then such a national law would be justified in any event.

An Advocate General's decision is not binding on the ECJ but it is likely to be followed. However, the laws on Age Discrimination will be kept under review and the DTI has confirmed that the default retirement age of 65 will be looked at in 2011 regardless of the outcome in Heyday's case.