header-logo header-logo

03 July 2008
Issue: 7328 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Trouble brewing over Equalities Bill proposals

Legal news

 The government will have an uphill struggle persuading businesses to embrace the proposals for the Equalities Bill, lawyers predict.

Proposed measures for the Bill, which is expected to be published in October, would allow employers to discriminate in favour of female or ethnic minority job candidates and ban contractual prohibitions on staff discussing pay with each other.

Pinsent Masons partner, Ashley Norman, says: “Unless there are clear guidelines as to how a business could positively discriminate in certain circumstances, businesses will probably continue as normal.”

Rachel Dineley, employment partner at Beachcroft LLP says: “The government will need to ensure the amendments to the existing law don’t simply create uncertainty, with a whole raft of new questions around the possible interpretations of key wordings.”

She says one of the most significant anticipated changes is the requirement for all public sector bodies—and those firms with public sector contracts—to publish figures showing the gender pay gap.

“Although they will not need to publish actual figures—just the percentage difference—this could have an enormous impact on employers as it will create extra work at a time when resources may already be stretched, and may well cause tensions in the workplace.”

She says the age discrimination proposals could significantly affect healthcare and insurance provision.

“The refusal of some types of cover simply on the basis of age may become a thing of the past. However, higher insurance premiums for older people will continue to be allowed where justified.

“…the new Bill may go much further than originally expected, in requiring the provision of expensive treatments to the elderly where these have previously been refused, on the grounds of their age. This is likely to present the medical profession with difficult ethical dilemmas, where funds and resources are limited and choices between patients have to be made and priorities determined.”

Issue: 7328 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll