In the light of high profile cases at British Airways and National Air Traffic Services, Iain Patterson, employment law expert at Browne Jacobson, looks at forthcoming discrimination legislation and how companies can avoid falling foul.
Obvious discrimination in the workplace is less and less frequent, which all would agree is a positive development. How often do you hear someone make a racist, sexist or homophobic comment to a colleague? The answer, for most of us, would surely be ‘not very often’.
However, though discrimination is happily less rife than it once was, it still remains, sometimes in subtle or even subconscious forms – for example, recruitment processes where employers might simply recruit more of the same. We like what we know, and appoint people who we think are like ourselves.
Also, employers often forget about indirect discrimination and the effect that policies and procedures can have on certain groups of staff. Take the example of Ben Sargeaunt-Thomson, the 6’10” graduate and would-be air traffic controller, whose job offer from National Air Traffic Services was withdrawn because he was too tall for the organisation’s workstations.
He is currently claiming indirect sexual discrimination, on the basis that men are generally taller than women, so NATS’ decision indirectly discriminates against male staff and applicants.
There are more obvious examples, for example concerning the requirement for employees to work full or part time. Staying with the airport theme, a recent case against British Airways concerned a minimum number of hours for a female pilot.
Jessica Starmer was held to have been indirectly discriminated against because she was not allowed to work 50% of her full time hours on returning from maternity leave. British Airway's policy was not to allow pilots with less than 2000 hours flying time to reduce their hours below 75%, on obvious safety grounds.
This policy was, however, to Mrs Starmer's detriment – as a woman she belonged to a group affected considerably more by this policy than men. BA's arguments as to why the policy was required were held as insufficient to amount to objective justification.
That is the crux of the issue in a case of indirect discrimination: whether a policy can be objectively justified by the organisation responsible. Can an employer justify treatment that is to the detriment of a considerably larger proportion of one group, protected in legislation by their sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or belief, than another group?
From 1st October 2005, there will be a revised definition of indirect sex discrimination, bringing this into line with legislation on race, sexual orientation and belief. The revision will require employers to objectively justify a provision, criterion, practice or policy which causes a particular disadvantage, by showing that:
- the requirement meets a legitimate business aim
- it is a proportionate means of meeting that aim
In the face of this new legislative climate, to avoid any doubt over potentially discriminatory policies, organisations should look to put in place the following steps:
- carefully consider provisions, criteria, practices or policies that cause a disadvantage, and determine the business aim of the practice
- carry out a thorough and critical analysis of the practice and the extent to which it meets the business aim
- avoid making assumptions as to what can and cannot work for the business
- be able to demonstrate that the practice it wishes to follow is reasonably necessary
Often organisations do not mean to discriminate against any particular group, but decisions and policies they consider necessary to their operations can inadvertently do so. By keeping the above measures in mind, employers can help protect themselves from the unexpected damage – in terms of litigation and negative publicity – of an indirect discrimination case.
Iain Patterson is a partner in the employment law practice at specialist law firm Browne Jacobson.
3 Responses
Part time discrimination?
Iain,
With reference to your statement about indirect discrimination do you have any examples of cases where part time working has been held to discriminate against men? The case about requiring staff to work full time is well established – it discriminates against women because of their responsibilities outside the working environment – but I haven’t seen any case law which suggests the “mirror” position that part time working discriminates against men.
I work in a large organisation where 80% of the work force are women and half the jobs are part time. In line with the national figures over 90% of our part time posts are held by women – compared to a more even (but still not representative) gender divide amongst our full time staff. The imbalance is growing as more and more of our full time female employees ask for part time hours. This creates even more part time posts which mainly attract women when they become vacant where as when a man leaves a full time post there is a 50% chance that it will be filled by woman and add to our growing gender imbalance. At the current rate of change we will become an all female work force in the foreseeable future.
Given that the courts accept that women have a right to work part time because of their role in our society as the primary “carer” can it be argued that men have a right to work full time? The evidence shows that few men work part time which suggests that they need full time employment in order to fulfill their role in our society which (as women have been accepted as the main “carer”) must be to primarily to work to bring home money.
I’m not arguing that this is how our society should be but, given the general acceptance of the role of women in our society as both working and as the primary carer for their families, it reflects the current reality for most working men for whom part time work is not an option that meets their need to earn a living.
Equality has been focussed on the needs of women / minority ethnic groups / disabled people/ sexual orientation etc but men rarely figure on the agenda despite the evidence that in some sectors, such as local government, they are becoming an endangered species.
Communication
The way decisions are communicated can also have a huge impact on how they are received.
For example, in a case of which I’m aware, a disabled teacher had the responsibility of being a form tutor withdrawn. The reason for this was that eliminating the workload associated with being responsible for a form made it easier for the teacher to cope with their main job role, that of teaching.
This may well satisfy the ‘legitimate busines aim’ and ‘proportionate means’ tests, but it was handled in an inept way. No discussion took place and the teacher was informed of the decision by letter during a period of sick leave. Even a request for a meeting to discuss the matter met with the response that the decision was not up for discussion.
The result was that the teacher felt aggrieved even though the decison was probably made with their best interest in mind.
A little talking goes a long way, and organisations should realise this.
Tribunals now decide Aviation safety?
From my simple perspective, I think that the Tribunal has made an enormous error in the Starmer case. The tribunal is saying, in effect, that it is in a better position to judge Aviation Safety than BA. I think not.
BA may be erring on the side of caution, but I’d rather them do that than allow any reduction in their safety record.
Dick Townsend