An interesting case from the EAT (sitting in Scotland) involving awards for injury to feelings when a disabled job applicant made a job application which was "not made wholly in good faith."
The Claimant applied for a job as a security officer. On his application form, he said he suffereded from depression and had not had a job for 14 years. His application was rejected at the first sift, which the tribunal found to be discriminatory on grounds of the Claimant's disability.
However, the tribunal noted that the Claimant was woefully underqualified for the job and had probably lied about the training he had received. They thought his job application was "not made wholly in good faith", and noted that he had attended a number of tribunal claims previously as a result of which he had a wide knowledge of discrimination law.
They awarded him £500 for injury to feelings. The Claimant appealed on the basis that a practical minimum should be £750, and on these facts he should have been awarded £2,500.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the award of £500 was well within the tribunal's discretion. Interestingly, the EAT held that there was no minimum award that tribunals should award (which appears to go against previous authorities), albeit that a practice had arisen of awarding at least £500.
Greig v Initial Security Ltd
Thursday, 24 November 2005
Wednesday, 16 November 2005
No cancers to be excluded from definition of disability
This is not particularly 'hot' news, but it is quite important and has not been picked up (as far as I am aware) by any of the legal journals.
It is well-known that from 5th December 2005, cover under the DDA 1995 will be extended to include, effectively from the point of diagnosis, people with HIV infection, cancer or multiple sclerosis.
There had been a previous indication that certain types of cancer were to be excluded from being deemed to be a disability. However, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State announced in the Commons a few weeks ago that "...following a review of evidence of the extent of discrimination faced by people with more minor forms of cancer, we have decided not to exercise the 2005 Act's regulation-making power which would allow us to exclude certain types of cancer from automatic coverage by the DDA 1995."
Other changes from 5th December will include the removal of the requirement that a mental illness be "clinically well-recognised" before it can be regarded as an impairment.
Click here to see the relevant extract from Hansard (scroll to third paragraph under the table)
[Thanks to Richard Lister of Lewis Silkin for notifying me of this.]
It is well-known that from 5th December 2005, cover under the DDA 1995 will be extended to include, effectively from the point of diagnosis, people with HIV infection, cancer or multiple sclerosis.
There had been a previous indication that certain types of cancer were to be excluded from being deemed to be a disability. However, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State announced in the Commons a few weeks ago that "...following a review of evidence of the extent of discrimination faced by people with more minor forms of cancer, we have decided not to exercise the 2005 Act's regulation-making power which would allow us to exclude certain types of cancer from automatic coverage by the DDA 1995."
Other changes from 5th December will include the removal of the requirement that a mental illness be "clinically well-recognised" before it can be regarded as an impairment.
Click here to see the relevant extract from Hansard (scroll to third paragraph under the table)
[Thanks to Richard Lister of Lewis Silkin for notifying me of this.]
Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Equal Pay - Genuine Material Factor Defence
The EAT has handed down an important equal pay decision, holding that the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
There has, for a little while, been tension between domestic and ECJ authorities in this area. The European approach requires that a difference in pay has to be objectively justified whereas the domestic approach is simply to require the employer to be able to account for the difference by reference to a factor which is material but is not the sex of the employee unless the factor relied upon by the employer is one which may itself indirectly discriminate against female employees, in which case the factor has to be objectively justified.
In a new decision, Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd. (HHJ Ansell presiding), the EAT has departed from the traditional domestic approach and adopted the European approach of requiring objective justification.
In so doing, the EAT declined to follow its previous 2004 decision in Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration v Fernandez, which held that a genuine material factor for a reason not related to sex is sufficient, and objective justification is not required.
Instead, it relied on the earlier 2001 ECJ authority of Brunhoffer Brunhoffer v Bank Der Osterrichischen Postparkasse AG, which had held that objective justification is required. The EAT has given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd.
Thanks to Russell Jones & Walker, who successfully represented the Claimant, and to the EOC (who funded the appeal), both of whom notified me of this decision
There has, for a little while, been tension between domestic and ECJ authorities in this area. The European approach requires that a difference in pay has to be objectively justified whereas the domestic approach is simply to require the employer to be able to account for the difference by reference to a factor which is material but is not the sex of the employee unless the factor relied upon by the employer is one which may itself indirectly discriminate against female employees, in which case the factor has to be objectively justified.
In a new decision, Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd. (HHJ Ansell presiding), the EAT has departed from the traditional domestic approach and adopted the European approach of requiring objective justification.
In so doing, the EAT declined to follow its previous 2004 decision in Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration v Fernandez, which held that a genuine material factor for a reason not related to sex is sufficient, and objective justification is not required.
Instead, it relied on the earlier 2001 ECJ authority of Brunhoffer Brunhoffer v Bank Der Osterrichischen Postparkasse AG, which had held that objective justification is required. The EAT has given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd.
Thanks to Russell Jones & Walker, who successfully represented the Claimant, and to the EOC (who funded the appeal), both of whom notified me of this decision
Monday, 14 November 2005
Equality Bill Printed
The Equality Bill (which has been passed in the House of Lords) has now been transferred to the House of Commons and is available on the House of Commons' website.
View Equality Bill
View Equality Bill
Thursday, 10 November 2005
Extension of Time for Appealing
A useful decision from the EAT, in which a firm of solicitors moved offices at the same time as London (Central) tribunal moved from Woburn Place to Kingsway.
Unsurprisingly, the tribunal's decision got lost somwhere along the way. The Claimant's solicitor wrote to chase up the tribunal, but the tribunal did not respond promptly. The end result was that the tribunal decision was received by the Claimant's solicitors on the 42nd day after it was officially sent to the parties, i.e. the last day for appealing.
The solicitor was on holiday and his trainee spoke to a colleague and spent two weeks obtaining instructions, awaiting the return of the relevant fee-earner, and liaising with Counsel. A Notice of Appeal was lodged two weeks after time technically expired.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (HHJ McMullen sitting alone) found that it was appropriate in those circumstances to exercise the EAT's discretion to extend time, and that the 14-day delay before the Notice of Appeal was lodged was reasonable.
This decision marks a slight departure from the EAT's usual reluctance to extend time - albeit in a fact-specific way when the EAT was satisfied that the Claimant did not receive the decision until the 42nd day.
Practice Point
If you are expecting a decision in the post, and it does not arrive, make sure you write to the tribunal to chase it up. If there is no reply, do not sit back - write again.
Without such correspondence on file, the EAT will be unsympathetic to an argument later down the line that the decision was lost or delayed in the post.
Dodd v Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, 30th Sept 2005
Unsurprisingly, the tribunal's decision got lost somwhere along the way. The Claimant's solicitor wrote to chase up the tribunal, but the tribunal did not respond promptly. The end result was that the tribunal decision was received by the Claimant's solicitors on the 42nd day after it was officially sent to the parties, i.e. the last day for appealing.
The solicitor was on holiday and his trainee spoke to a colleague and spent two weeks obtaining instructions, awaiting the return of the relevant fee-earner, and liaising with Counsel. A Notice of Appeal was lodged two weeks after time technically expired.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (HHJ McMullen sitting alone) found that it was appropriate in those circumstances to exercise the EAT's discretion to extend time, and that the 14-day delay before the Notice of Appeal was lodged was reasonable.
This decision marks a slight departure from the EAT's usual reluctance to extend time - albeit in a fact-specific way when the EAT was satisfied that the Claimant did not receive the decision until the 42nd day.
Practice Point
If you are expecting a decision in the post, and it does not arrive, make sure you write to the tribunal to chase it up. If there is no reply, do not sit back - write again.
Without such correspondence on file, the EAT will be unsympathetic to an argument later down the line that the decision was lost or delayed in the post.
Dodd v Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, 30th Sept 2005
Wednesday, 9 November 2005
No Smoking in Scotland..
From 6am on March 26, 2006, smoking will no longer be allowed in the majority of enclosed public places, including workplaces, to protect people from the harmful effects of passive smoking. This applies only to Scotland.
The Scottish Executive has just published guidelines to help businesses and organisations prepare for the ban, together with other useful documents (such as downloadable posters to display in the workplace).
Click here for further information
[Thanks to Gillian Bain of Just Employment Law for sending me the above information.]
The Scottish Executive has just published guidelines to help businesses and organisations prepare for the ban, together with other useful documents (such as downloadable posters to display in the workplace).
Click here for further information
[Thanks to Gillian Bain of Just Employment Law for sending me the above information.]
Claim and Response Forms
I have been in correspondence with the Employment Tribunals Service over precisely which Claim and Response Forms are 'prescribed' for use in tribunals. I am receiving dozens of Emails on this topic and I understand the ETS are likewise receiving many similar queries. Hopefully this bulletin will help clear the air.
Has anything been prescribed?
No statutory instrument has been issued - a matter which has caused a lot of queries. However, there is no requirement under the rules for the prescribed forms to be issued by way of Regulation.
The ETS made a formal submission to Gerry Sutcliffe, Minister for Employment, on 19th September 2005. This contained proposals for exactly what versions of the forms should be used from 1st October 2005.
Gerry Sutcliffe approved the submissions (and thereby prescribed the forms) on 22nd September 2005.
What forms have been prescribed?
The following paper forms have been prescribed:
In addition, the electronic / pdf versions available from the Employment Tribunals website (submitted either via the website or by Email) are prescribed for use.
Employment Tribunals Service website
Has anything been prescribed?
No statutory instrument has been issued - a matter which has caused a lot of queries. However, there is no requirement under the rules for the prescribed forms to be issued by way of Regulation.
The ETS made a formal submission to Gerry Sutcliffe, Minister for Employment, on 19th September 2005. This contained proposals for exactly what versions of the forms should be used from 1st October 2005.
Gerry Sutcliffe approved the submissions (and thereby prescribed the forms) on 22nd September 2005.
What forms have been prescribed?
The following paper forms have been prescribed:
- the version of the Claim Form which was available from 1 October 2004 (coloured purple);
- OCR compatible versions of the Claim and Response Forms issued in March and September 2005 (coloured aqua);
- Welsh Language versions of the OCR compatible versions issued in September 2005;
- large print versions of the OCR compatible versions issued in September 2005.
In addition, the electronic / pdf versions available from the Employment Tribunals website (submitted either via the website or by Email) are prescribed for use.
Employment Tribunals Service website
Thursday, 3 November 2005
Very Important Bulletin
The downloadable .pdf Claim and Response Forms on the ETS website are not in the prescribed form
As readers will know, tribunals are now rejecting Claim and Response Forms that are not the 'official' versions. These include in-house computer forms and forms by commercial organisations such as Laserform.
I have just been told (and checked - it's right!!) that some downloadable .pdf versions of the Claim and Response Forms that are on the ETS website are the old forms which are not valid.
To get the correct forms go to the ETS website at
http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk.
Click "Publications" at the top of the page.
The links to the correct forms appear in the main text on that page.
The incorrect forms appear if, instead, you click 'Download' on the left-hand side (rather than 'Publications' at the top) of the ETS homepage. The forms that are then offered for downloading are the old, incorrect forms. The Claim Form does not contain box 11 (disability discrimination claims) or box 13 (mutliple cases), and the Response Form does not contain boxes 1.5 to 1.8
DO NOT USE THESE VERSIONS OF THE FORMS
[Thanks to Paula Lawn at Butcher Andrews for providing this information]
As readers will know, tribunals are now rejecting Claim and Response Forms that are not the 'official' versions. These include in-house computer forms and forms by commercial organisations such as Laserform.
I have just been told (and checked - it's right!!) that some downloadable .pdf versions of the Claim and Response Forms that are on the ETS website are the old forms which are not valid.
To get the correct forms go to the ETS website at
http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk.
Click "Publications" at the top of the page.
The links to the correct forms appear in the main text on that page.
The incorrect forms appear if, instead, you click 'Download' on the left-hand side (rather than 'Publications' at the top) of the ETS homepage. The forms that are then offered for downloading are the old, incorrect forms. The Claim Form does not contain box 11 (disability discrimination claims) or box 13 (mutliple cases), and the Response Form does not contain boxes 1.5 to 1.8
DO NOT USE THESE VERSIONS OF THE FORMS
[Thanks to Paula Lawn at Butcher Andrews for providing this information]
Ainsworth off to the Lords...
I have been told by Thompsons solicitors (acting for the Appellants) that Ainsworth v Inland Revenue has been granted permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
The Court of Appeal decided (overturning Kigass v Brown Aero) that employees on long-term sick did not continue to accrue the right to four weeks' paid holiday each year (see bulletin 22/4/05). The decision was greeted with relief by employers, but it seems the saga has not yet ended...
The Court of Appeal decided (overturning Kigass v Brown Aero) that employees on long-term sick did not continue to accrue the right to four weeks' paid holiday each year (see bulletin 22/4/05). The decision was greeted with relief by employers, but it seems the saga has not yet ended...
Tuesday, 1 November 2005
EAT in Scotland
From this week, all appeals in Scotland will be handled administratively from Audit House, London, rather than from Edinburgh.
The hearings will continue to take place in Melville Street, Edinburgh.
Click here for formal Notice from the EAT
Thanks to Henry Scrope of http://www.emplaw.co.uk for this information
The hearings will continue to take place in Melville Street, Edinburgh.
Click here for formal Notice from the EAT
Thanks to Henry Scrope of http://www.emplaw.co.uk for this information
Thursday, 27 October 2005
Sexual Orientation and the Workplace
Acas has updated its guidance on sexual orientation and the workplace.
It can be downloaded from the link below. Note it is a large pdf file and may take 10 or 20 seconds to open.
Download Acas Guide
It can be downloaded from the link below. Note it is a large pdf file and may take 10 or 20 seconds to open.
Download Acas Guide
Stress at Work
Just up on BAILII today is a Court of Appeal decision from June.
In it, the Court holds that when deciding whether psychiatric injury is reasonable foreseeable (for the purpose of a stress at work claim), it is proper for the court to take into account that the employer is breaching the maximum average 48-hour working week (and the rest provisions) contained in the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Hone v Six Continents Retail
In it, the Court holds that when deciding whether psychiatric injury is reasonable foreseeable (for the purpose of a stress at work claim), it is proper for the court to take into account that the employer is breaching the maximum average 48-hour working week (and the rest provisions) contained in the Working Time Regulations 1998.
Hone v Six Continents Retail
Imposing Restrictive Covenants
The EAT has just handed down an important decision in Windsor Recruitment v Silverwood, overturning its previous approach to imposing restrictive covenants in Forshaw v Archcraft.
Windsor Recruitment wanted to impose restrictive covenants on its workforce. It dismissed some employees who refused to accept them. It had faced several successful episodes of poaching both staff and business by its competitors, and there was clearly a good business reason for imposing the restrictive covenants.
The employment tribunal held that the covenants were too wide and therefore unenforceable. It held that the employer could not, therefore, establish 'some other subtantial reason' for the dismissals, which were consequently unfair.
The EAT (Burton P. presiding) overturned this decision (also overturning the previous EAT authority of Forshaw v Archcraft, which was on almost identical facts).
Burton P. stated that dismissal for refusing to accept restrictive covenants is capable of being 'some other substantial reason' unless the covenants were "in fact a cover or a ruse to get rid of the employee" (para. 23).
The consideration of the reasonableness of the covenants then comes in not when deciding the reason for the dismissal, but instrad deciding the general 'fairness' issue. The EAT set out the approach for tribunals at para. 24, namely:
Windsor Recruitment v Silverwood
Windsor Recruitment wanted to impose restrictive covenants on its workforce. It dismissed some employees who refused to accept them. It had faced several successful episodes of poaching both staff and business by its competitors, and there was clearly a good business reason for imposing the restrictive covenants.
The employment tribunal held that the covenants were too wide and therefore unenforceable. It held that the employer could not, therefore, establish 'some other subtantial reason' for the dismissals, which were consequently unfair.
The EAT (Burton P. presiding) overturned this decision (also overturning the previous EAT authority of Forshaw v Archcraft, which was on almost identical facts).
Burton P. stated that dismissal for refusing to accept restrictive covenants is capable of being 'some other substantial reason' unless the covenants were "in fact a cover or a ruse to get rid of the employee" (para. 23).
The consideration of the reasonableness of the covenants then comes in not when deciding the reason for the dismissal, but instrad deciding the general 'fairness' issue. The EAT set out the approach for tribunals at para. 24, namely:
- if the proposed covenant is plainly unreasonable and is not severable, it will make it easier for a tribunal to conclude there was unfairness;
- if the proposed covenant is arguably unenforceable (and/or severable), then consideration must be given to the employer's approach to the matter; in particular, the amount of time given to employees to consider the proposals and the opportunity given for legal advice;
- if the covenant is plainly reasonable then, whilst consideration of procedure is still necessary, it will be easier for a tribunal to conclude the dismissal is fair.
Windsor Recruitment v Silverwood
Disability Discrimination
Phew - wet towel time!
The Court of Appeal has, this morning, handed down a staggeringly complicated decision on the correct approach to claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Don't even think about trying to read this one unless you're very, very brave...
In a nutshell:
Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc
The Court of Appeal has, this morning, handed down a staggeringly complicated decision on the correct approach to claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Don't even think about trying to read this one unless you're very, very brave...
In a nutshell:
- when considering what "any arrangements made by or on behalf of an employer (which)...place the disabled person...at a substantial disadvantage" means, an 'arrangement' covers an employer's belief in the Claimant's ability to fulfil the job requirements, and is not limited to the irreducible minimum of the job;
- the correct comparator(s), when examining whether the disabled person is at a disadvantage, is not the population as a whole, but those others who fulfil the other conditions for the job;
- the justification test for deciding whether a failure to make reasonable adjustments is justified (under the old s6 of the DDA) is objective. The justification test when deciding whether an employer has treated a Claimant less favourably (under the old s5 of the Act) is subjective.
Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc
10 Key Facts on Age Discrimination
The 'Age Positive' website has just published ten 'Key Facts your business needs to know about age discrimination' (rather embarrassingly, under the headling '20 key facts', although there are only 10 of them!).
They can be accessed by clicking here
They can be accessed by clicking here
Monday, 24 October 2005
Claim and Response Forms online
The Employment Tribunals Service has introduced a service enabling Claimaints and Respondents to save their Claim / Response Forms online.
This makes it much easier to use the online facility, as the forms can be filled in over a period of time and do not need to be completed in the one sitting.
Claim and Response Forms
Thanks to Ed McFarlane of Qdos Consulting for telling me about this development
This makes it much easier to use the online facility, as the forms can be filled in over a period of time and do not need to be completed in the one sitting.
Claim and Response Forms
Thanks to Ed McFarlane of Qdos Consulting for telling me about this development
Compromise Agreements
A majority decision from the EAT sitting in Scotland, holding that a Compromise Agreement did not exclude an Equal Pay claim...
As often happens, the Claimant signed a Compromise Agreement on termination of employment. In exchange for signing away her statutory rights, she was given a payment exceeding her statutory entitlements. She had some 12 or so discussions with her solicitor before signing the agreement.
Several months later, she read an article in the newspapers about part-time workers' pension claims. She brought fresh proceedings under the Equal Pay Act 1970 on the basis she had been excluded from her employer's pension scheme whilst a part-time worker. The employer responded by asserting she had signed a compromise agreement which excluded proceedings under the Equal Pay Act.
It was common ground for the purpose of the appeal that the Claimant did not know of her right to bring a part-time pension claim, and equally that her solicitors had not enquired of her whether she might be able to bring such a claim.
The majority of the EAT held that the Compromise Agreement did not prevent her from bringing a new claim because, at the time of signing the agreement, she did not know that such a claim existed. They placed reliance on the fact that the Compromise Agreement stated that she was only excluding such claims as "you believe you have against the Company". So here is a drafting tip: if you are acting for the employer, don't use a phrase like that in your Compromise Agreements.
The minority (wing) member held that it was contrary to policy to allow an employee to avoid the effect of a Compromise Agreement, the purpose of which is to create industrial certainty for employer and employee.
Just out of interest, the EAT also held that it was not relevant that the Claimant's solicitor was only being paid £250 for dealing with the Compromise Agreement (see paragraph 18 of the judgment)!
Hilton Hotels v McNaughton
As often happens, the Claimant signed a Compromise Agreement on termination of employment. In exchange for signing away her statutory rights, she was given a payment exceeding her statutory entitlements. She had some 12 or so discussions with her solicitor before signing the agreement.
Several months later, she read an article in the newspapers about part-time workers' pension claims. She brought fresh proceedings under the Equal Pay Act 1970 on the basis she had been excluded from her employer's pension scheme whilst a part-time worker. The employer responded by asserting she had signed a compromise agreement which excluded proceedings under the Equal Pay Act.
It was common ground for the purpose of the appeal that the Claimant did not know of her right to bring a part-time pension claim, and equally that her solicitors had not enquired of her whether she might be able to bring such a claim.
The majority of the EAT held that the Compromise Agreement did not prevent her from bringing a new claim because, at the time of signing the agreement, she did not know that such a claim existed. They placed reliance on the fact that the Compromise Agreement stated that she was only excluding such claims as "you believe you have against the Company". So here is a drafting tip: if you are acting for the employer, don't use a phrase like that in your Compromise Agreements.
The minority (wing) member held that it was contrary to policy to allow an employee to avoid the effect of a Compromise Agreement, the purpose of which is to create industrial certainty for employer and employee.
Just out of interest, the EAT also held that it was not relevant that the Claimant's solicitor was only being paid £250 for dealing with the Compromise Agreement (see paragraph 18 of the judgment)!
Hilton Hotels v McNaughton
Wednesday, 19 October 2005
New Family Friendly Proposals
The government has just announced its new family-friendly proposals, following extensive consultation. They will appear in the Works and Families Bill, to be published soon.
The new / changed laws will be:
The new / changed laws will be:
- extending Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance to nine months from April 2007 with the ambition of moving to a year by the end of the Parliament;
- a power to introduce new paternity leave for fathers, enabling them to benefit from leave and statutory pay if the mother returns to work after six months but before the end of her maternity leave period;
- extending the right to request flexible working to carers from April 2007;
- measures to help businesses manage the administration of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay;
- introducing 'keeping in touch'days so that where employees and employers agree, a women on maternity leave can go into work for a few days, without losing her right to maternity leave or a week's statutory pay;
- extending the period of notice for return from maternity leave to two months enabling employees and employers to more effectively plan for return to work;
- making clear in the regulations that employers can make reasonable contact with their employees on maternity leave to help employers plan and ease the mother's return to work.
Wednesday, 12 October 2005
Personality Dismissals
The Court of Appeal has, today, handed down its judgment in Perkin v St Georges Healthcare NHS Trust.
It stands as authority for the proposition that employers are entitled to dismiss employees for having a difficult personality, even when they are technically good at their jobs and there are no criticisms of their integrity, on the grounds of 'some other substantial reason'. (Note, on the facts, the dismissal was technically unfair because the decision-maker was biased, but the tribunal declined to award compensation).
It is also authority for the proposition that, in an appropriate case, it is possible to:
It stands as authority for the proposition that employers are entitled to dismiss employees for having a difficult personality, even when they are technically good at their jobs and there are no criticisms of their integrity, on the grounds of 'some other substantial reason'. (Note, on the facts, the dismissal was technically unfair because the decision-maker was biased, but the tribunal declined to award compensation).
It is also authority for the proposition that, in an appropriate case, it is possible to:
- have a finding of 100% contributory fault; and,
- because of the aggressive way in which the employee defended himself (making allegations of fraud against the Chief Executive of the NHS Trust), any disciplinary panel - even if not chaired by the biased chairperson - would be 100% certain to have dismissed him on the grounds he would not be able to continue working with senior executives of the Trust.
Wednesday, 5 October 2005
'Gender Duty' Consultation
Probably of interest only to those who deal in/with the public sector...
The government has launched a consultation on its proposals to introduce a public sector duty to promote gender equality - commonly referred to as the 'gender duty'. These proposals will require public authorities to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity between men and women. The main three themes oblige public authorities to:
The government has launched a consultation on its proposals to introduce a public sector duty to promote gender equality - commonly referred to as the 'gender duty'. These proposals will require public authorities to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity between men and women. The main three themes oblige public authorities to:
- identify and implement specific gender equality goals;
- develop and publish an equal pay policy statement; and
- assess the impact of new policies and changes to services on men and women - allowing negative effects to be mitigated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
