header-logo header-logo

Green light for Equality Bill

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll