header-logo header-logo

13 April 2007
Issue: 7268 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Human rights , Employment
printer mail-detail

Dispute procedures victimise employees

Workplace dispute resolution procedures designed to protect sufferers of religious and sexual orientation-related abuse tend to victimise them even further, and usually result in their dismissal or demotion, research shows.

Surveys undertaken by the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and ACAS, published last week, show that dispute resolution procedures often aggravate the experience of discrimination rather than resolve it.

The IES research found that a major complaint among claimants was the tendency of employers to respond to their complaint by seeing them as the problem, rather than the victim of unfair treatment.

The research tracked the progress of the employment equality regulations on sexual orientation and religion or belief, which became law in 2003.

Participants in the ACAS study, which covered 470 sexual orientation and 461 religion or belief cases, said employment tribunals were a valuable way for their claims of ill treatment to receive an objective hearing. This was felt to be more important than obtaining compensation.

The research also found that different groups faced different kinds of discrimination, with sexual orientation

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll