Explains what kinds of behaviour count as sexual harassment and the action you can take about it. Explains that it is illegal to make someone discriminate against, harass or victimise a certain individual or group and action you can take if it happens. Explains what is meant by victimisation - when you have raised concerns about discrimination against you, or someone else, and you are treated badly because of this.
Skip to navigation Skip to content Skip to footer. Top links Housing benefit. Top links Template letter to raise a grievance at work. Top links Our pensions advice Write a letter to your creditors. Top links If you want a refund because of coronavirus Contact the consumer helpline Report to Trading Standards Problems with a used car Return faulty goods Buying a used car Your energy supply View all.
Housing Coronavirus - if you have problems with renting Renting privately Renting from the council or a housing association Homelessness Repairs in rented housing Renting a home Mortgage problems Discrimination in housing View all in Housing. Family Living together, marriage and civil partnership How to separate Sorting out money Making agreements about your children If you were living together Death and wills Gender violence Children and young people View all in Family.
Top links Making a will Complaining about social care services What does it mean to have power of attorney? Color discrimination occurs when persons are treated differently than others because of their skin pigmentation.
Color discrimination can occur within the same ethnic group. So does that mean that individuals of the same race can discriminate against another because of different skin pigmentation? Sex discrimination occurs when men and women who are similarly situated are treated differently based on gender.
It takes place when deliberate, repeated, or unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, or physical contacts of a sexual nature are unwelcome. Retaliation is a discriminatory or adverse action made against a person who files a complaint or charge, participates in an investigation or charge, or opposes an employment practice made illegal by any of the statutes. Employees are protected from retaliation in the EEO process. The most obvious types of retaliation are denial of a promotion, refusal to hire, denial of job benefits, demotion, suspension and discharge.
Other types of adverse actions include threats, reprimands, negative evaluations, and harassment. After a female employee filed an EEO complaint of discrimination stating she was denied a promotion because of her gender, one week later the supervisor invited a few employees out to lunch. The employee believed she was excluded because of her EEO complaint. Is this reprisal? Even if the supervisor chose not to invite the employee because of her charge, this would not constitute unlawful retaliation because it is not reasonably likely to deter protected activity.
The supervisor excluded the employee from these lunches after she filed the sex discrimination charge. If she was excluded because of her charge, this would constitute unlawful retaliation since it could reasonably deter this employee or others from engaging in protected activity. Union activity is not a protected activity. Read more details about discrimination laws and regulations go to the EEOC webpage external icon.
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link. Section Navigation. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Syndicate. Types of Discrimination. Minus Related Pages. Can you cite examples of term, condition, or privilege of employment? Top of Page Disability Discrimination Are there any laws that protect employees from disability discrimination?
Top of Page Status as a Parent I heard through unofficial means that it is illegal to discriminate against an individual based on their parental status. I am a foster parent. Does this mean that I am covered too? Well, if not EEO whom can I go to? Top of Page Religious Discrimination I have heard that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of his or her religion.
What is an undue hardship? These may well place younger workers at a disadvantage compared to older workers and could therefore amount to unlawful indirect discrimination unless employers are able to justify them in each case. The Act contains exceptions for some service-related benefits, which apply to employees and other workers, including partners.
In counting employees' length of service for these purposes, an employer has the choice between counting service at or above a particular level or grade, or counting an employee's total continuous service. These exceptions do not apply to termination awards or payments such as enhanced redundancy pay which are dealt with separately see below.
There is an automatic exception for benefits based on up to five years' service. An employer who awards a benefit falling within this exception does not need to justify its policy, even if it is indirectly discriminatory.
An employer has a basic holiday entitlement of 20 days a year, plus bank holidays. The employer also awards an extra day's holiday per year of service, up to a maximum of five years. This applies to all employees in the organisation.
This benefit would fall within the five-year exception. For benefits which are based on service beyond five years, there is a partial exception. Objective justification is not required, but the exception only applies where it reasonably appears to an employer that using a service-related criterion fulfils a business need, for example:.
Employers must be able to explain why they believe their service-related benefit fulfils the business need in question and the tribunal will determine whether, objectively speaking, a business need was reasonably being fulfilled. An employer has a sabbatical policy which allows employees to take six months' leave after ten years of service. This places younger workers at a disadvantage as they are less likely to have such long service. If the employer can show that it has a business need to reward or encourage loyal employees, and that the sabbatical policy fulfils that need, this is likely to fall within the exception.
Most service-related benefits are likely to come within one of the exceptions above. In other situations, such as service-related termination payments, objective justification will be required if the service criteria put people in one age group at a particular disadvantage when compared with others. Employers sometimes make particular benefits dependent on experience. Experience most often has an impact on pay, especially in setting starting salaries. Unlike service-related benefits, there are no 'automatic' exceptions applicable to experience requirements.
The general principles apply and employers will have to justify experience criteria that put employees in one age group at a particular disadvantage when compared with others. Benefits or pay which are related to experience which can be gained over a short period of time are unlikely to have such an impact. Harry complains that he has outperformed Joe while at Intec and the salary differential based on years of experience is indirectly discriminatory.
Intec may struggle to justify this pay differential. These tend to become more expensive for older employees. The Act includes a specific exemption which provides that an employer can withdraw or refuse to offer these benefits to employees when they reach the age of The wording of the exemption suggests that it only applies to employers who stop providing insurance benefits to employees as soon as they reach the age of If an employer continues providing the benefit for a further period, for example, until employees are 70, this may fall outside the exception, meaning that the employer would have to objectively justify the policy.
The drafting of the exemption means that an employer who self-insures rather than use a third party insurer will not be covered unless its business is the provision of insurance. Some option plans contain discriminatory rules relating, for example, to good and bad leavers.
The fact that the plan rules were drafted elsewhere e. It defines good leavers who retain their options as including those who retire and bad leavers as including those who resign.
If the company treats those who elect to retire at retirement age differently from those who chose to leave earlier it will have to justify this. This might not be straightforward. Statutory redundancy payments remain calculated partly on the basis of age. A week's pay is capped the current rates are available here. A maximum 20 years' service can be counted, and an employee must have two years' continuous service to qualify at all.
There is an exception in the Act to allow the payment of enhanced redundancy pay, where this is based on the calculation method of the statutory scheme. This allows employers to:. This would be a multiple which must be the same for everyone of the statutory multiple which differs depending on age ;. In all other respects it must comply with the statutory redundancy pay calculation including, for example, maintaining the service cap of 20 years.
However, very few enhanced schemes come within this exception. Most schemes do not incorporate the statutory scheme's age bands. Many incorporate other elements such as a cap on the redundancy payment so that it can not be more than the employee's earnings to retirement. With enhanced schemes that are not covered by the exception it will be necessary to justify all indirectly or directly discriminatory features.
One common feature of enhanced schemes is the use of length of service but not age multiples in calculating the payment. This is likely to be indirectly discriminatory as it disadvantages younger employees. As enhanced redundancy payments do not fall within the service related benefits exception referred to above, this use of service will require objective justification.
The employer's legitimate aim will presumably be rewarding loyalty but it should satisfy itself that the effect of the scheme is proportionate. What has been critical in the cases which have been decided on this point is that the employer has been able to show that it has given consideration to the legitimate aim that it is pursuing and is able to show that the discriminatory elements of the scheme contribute to that aim.
Westington Industries' enhanced redundancy policy provides for one month's pay for each year of service with a minimum payment of three months' pay and a maximum of 24 months' pay. The payment is capped at remuneration to normal retirement date. This scheme does not come within the statutory scheme because it does not incorporate the statutory age bands, provides for a minimum of three months' pay and caps redundancy pay at both 24 months' pay and pay to retirement.
Any of these four elements would be enough to take the scheme outside the enhanced redundancy pay exception. Westington would have to objectively justify each directly or indirectly discriminatory aspect of the scheme including the discriminatory aspects which would have been lawful if the scheme had come within the enhanced redundancy pay exception. The cap on pay to retirement disadvantages those approaching retirement age but may well be justified on the basis that the principal aim of the redundancy payment is to cushion the financial implications of unemployment.
Reasons of cost alone cannot justify discrimination but Westington may be able to justify this on the basis that its aim is to have a fair redundancy pay scheme within a certain budget. The absence of any age bands and the minimum payments do not disadvantage particular age groups.
However, Westington would have to justify tying redundancy pay to service. Where an employer can show that it gave consideration to justification, tribunals have shown themselves generally willing to accept this.
Remember that age discrimination claims can arise from enhanced redundancy payments whether they are made under a contractual scheme, or a scheme which is described as discretionary, or even one which has never been published to employees.
The Act covers pensions and there is a general rule that the trustees and managers of a pension scheme must not discriminate against its members on the grounds of age. However, as pensions are inherently linked to age the Act deals with the potential discrimination arising from this by providing a number of exceptions.
Most of the exceptions relate only to occupational pension schemes i. Where employers make pension contributions on behalf of employees into personal pension schemes, including group personal pensions GPPs , only limited exceptions apply. The following exceptions apply to employer contributions to personal schemes including GPPs :. Making contributions at different rates based on the age of employees is allowed, provided that the purpose of this is to equalise or try to equalise the amount of benefit reflecting the greater cost of providing pension benefits to employees as they get older.
Different rates which are attributable to pay differentials are also allowed. Equal rates of contributions irrespective of age are permitted. It is permissible to set a minimum age for commencement of payment of employer contributions. However, employers may not set a maximum age, and will not be permitted to reduce or cease contributions for employees over a particular age unless this can be objectively justified. Some of the main exceptions applying only to occupational pension schemes are:.
Age-related criteria can be used in actuarial calculations, for example in relation to employer and employee contributions, or for benefits taken before or after normal pension age. Minimum and maximum ages can be fixed for employees joining pension schemes, and different ages can be set for different categories of employees. However, there is no exception allowing employees to be removed from schemes or moved to less favourable schemes if they stay on past retirement.
Pension schemes can fix a minimum age for entitlement to pension benefits separate pensions legislation set a minimum age at which pensions benefits can be drawn. Some schemes provide for early retirement with enhanced or unreduced pensions in certain circumstances. Where this applies on redundancy or ill health, there is an exception allowing enhancement of benefits. In other circumstances, it is permitted for employees who were active or prospective members of the scheme on 1 December , but not for new joiners.
The exception allows a minimum age to be set for these benefits. It is not age discrimination to close a scheme to new members. Employers need to ensure that employees are not deprived of opportunities in employment because of their age. Employees of all ages should be given the same opportunities for training, personal development and to apply for promotion. They should also have their performance assessed in the same way. In particular, employers should be careful to avoid making assumptions about employees based on their age and also implementing systems or training programmes which could indirectly discriminate against a particular age group.
A manager undertakes annual appraisals and discusses with staff their training objectives and career aspirations. The manager does not have these discussions with an employee aged 62, assuming he is not interested in career development as he is close to retirement.
As a result, the employee is denied the opportunity to undertake some presentation skills training. This would be unlawful age discrimination. A company's performance management system involves staff being assessed for 'potential'. Older workers generally receive low scores under this heading, affecting their opportunities for promotion and the amount of bonus they receive.
This employer is at serious risk of successful legal challenges by disadvantaged employees. Employers need to take steps to ensure that employees are not exposed to a discriminatory working environment. The Act prohibits employers from subjecting employees to harassment by engaging in unwanted conduct related to age or perceived age which has the purpose or effect of:.
Because of the way the harassment provisions are worded, it is also unlawful to harass someone because of the age of someone they are associated with, for example because they have a spouse who is much older or younger than them.
Employers are responsible for harassment by their employees in the course of employment, unless they can show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent it happening. There does not need to be any intent to harass or to cause offence for conduct to constitute harassment.
An employee can still suffer harassment if the effect of the actions is to violate dignity or cause humiliation or offence. This is assessed objectively, taking into account the perception of the victim. The question of whether conduct is 'unwanted' will sometimes be unclear.
It will not always be necessary for an employee to tell his or her harasser that the behaviour is unwanted. An employer dismisses a 60 year old employee for poor performance. The employee submits an employment tribunal claim for age discrimination, alleging that during the last few years of his employment, he has been the butt of ageist jokes. The employee never complained about this, but says that is because he joined in with the banter to avoid causing problems when in fact he felt humiliated and offended.
The employee might have a claim for harassment if he brings his claim in time, but at the least the employment tribunal may consider that it is evidence of an ageist culture, which could support his claim that his dismissal was discriminatory.
Employers need to ensure that their harassment and dignity at work policies deal with ageist harassment and should take steps to foster a culture in which age discrimination is not tolerated. This issue should also be included in employers' equal opportunities and diversity training. Nov 08 Discrimination Claims Based on Algorithms Computer and artificial intelligence algorithms are used widely to reduce workloads for humans and produce fast, reliable results. Sep 27 Is Weight Discrimination Legal?
First Name Please enter your first name. Last Name Please enter your last name. Phone Please enter your phone number. This isn't a valid phone number. Email Please enter your email address. This isn't a valid email address. Yes, I am a potential new client No, I'm a current existing client I'm neither. Are you a new client? Please make a selection. Message Please enter a message.
Send Information.
0コメント