header-logo header-logo

30 April 2009
Issue: 7367 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Human rights , Employment
printer mail-detail

Green light for Equality Bill

Expansion of discrimination law will extend positive action regime

Employment and human rights lawyers have largely welcomed Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill.

The wide-ranging Bill combines existing discrimination law into one statute, allows positive discrimination during recruitment, and bans gagging clauses on employees discussing their pay.

Employers with more than 250 staff members could be required to publish details of discrepancies between salaries from 2013.

Rachel Dineley, employment partner, Beachcroft LLP, says: “The Bill has been a long time coming and the sooner we distil the many pieces of legislation into a single Act, the better.”

Dineley says the expansion of the law on discrimination by association is a key development: “In future, workers who may themselves not have a relevant characteristic—related to gender, age or disability—but
are associated with someone who has, such as someone for whom they care or to whom they are related, may not be adversely treated, by reason
of that association. This will protect, for example, carers of the disabled or elderly parents.

“Controversially, the Bill will extend the positive action regime. Employers will be able to consider, when selecting between two equally qualified candidates, underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups and appoint the under-represented person. The merits of these new provisions are controversial and some view it as social engineering by the back door. However, with only 131 women on the UK FTSE 100 boards, one can see why the government perceives that positive action must be facilitated, where there is a driver to achieve a better balance in representation. Employers will have some discretion in how the power is exercised.”

Geoffrey Bindman, founder of Bindmans LLP, says the Bill completes the antidiscrimination reform process by bringing the substantive law into a single statutory code.

“The proposal to make the equal pay duty more effective by requiring disclosure of salaries and wages will not be welcomed by everyone,
especially the men who benefit from inequality,” he adds.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
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
back-to-top-scroll