header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007 / Joanna Wort , Hilary Aldred
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Christmas crackers

Employers need to tread carefully when sorting out
their Christmas holiday rotas, say Hilary Aldred and Joanna Wort

The UK has historically operated working practices which take account of Christian festivals. The make-up of Britain has, however, changed; both in relation to multi-cultural issues and consumer expectation of 24/7 service. Workplaces have had to change too.

In 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (SI 2003/1660) (the regulations) made discrimination at work based on grounds of religion or belief unlawful.

Before this there was no specific protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion. Claimants tried to gain protection by “shoe horning” certain religions into the race discrimination legislation. This worked for some religious groups that also qualified as “ethnic groups” under the Race Relations Act 1976, but not others. Jews and Sikhs were protected, but Muslims were not.

The basic position under the regulations is that direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation based on religion or belief are unlawful. While direct discrimination is obvious, indirect discrimination is not. It

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll