Sex Discrimination Flashcards
What is sex under the Equality Act?
S 11 - concerns the biological state of being a man or a woman
Direct discrimination still applies even if the employer is not aware that he is being discriminatory
Coleman v Skyrail Oceanic (t/a Goodmans) Ltd [1981] - husband and wife worked for rival companies. One had to be dismissed to prevent sensitive information being shared between the two and they dismissed the woman because it was thought that the man would be the bread winner. Held : discriminatory on grounds of sex. Employer not allowed to assume this.
Horsey v Dyfed County Council [1982] - Woman let go due to the assumption that she would go and join her husband. Held: same principle in coleman applied, employer is not allowed to make that assumption and this was discriminatory.
The motive or direct discrimination on grounds of sex is irrelevant however well intentioned
Griegg v Community Industry [1979] - two women hired for two posts, one woman did not show up so the other woman was not allowed to work as there had been problems with just one woman working alone with men in the past.
Held: directly discriminatory on grounds of sex - motive irrelevant
Explain why most of the time dress codes are not discriminatory.
Because different treatment does not equal less favourable treatment. Provided the employer does not treat the person less favourably in implementing dress codes they will usually be seen as fair
The test regarding whether dress codes are discriminatory on grounds of sex is objective
Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority [1994]
Female nurse required to wear a cap whilst male nurses weren’t.
Female nurse thought this was demeaning and when she refused to wear one disciplinary action was brought so she claimed race discrimination.
Held: Even though there was no practical use for the cap, it did not constitute discrimination as it was not less favourable treatment and the fact she felt it was was irrelevant as the test is objective
Different hair lengths being required of different employees is not discriminatory on grounds of sex
Smith v Safeways Stores [1996] - man worked in delicatessen and wore a ponytail and was dismissed as the employer had rule that hairstyles should not be unconventional and should not be permitted to grow below collar length.
Held: no sex discrimination as the policy was even-handed.
There must be a real need for the PCP regarding indirect discrimination on grounds of sex
Network Rail Infrastructures Ltd v Gammie [2009]
Ypourgous v Kalliri [2017] - greek police had height requirement which was indirectly discriminatory towards women as it could not be justified as it was not a necessary objective of ensuring capability for the job
In applying a PCP the employer must consider the employees likely to be affected by it the most try to accommodate their needs
London Underground Ltd v Edwards [1999] - female train driver worked from 8am-4pm.
Employer changed working hours from to start from 4:45am.
As she had young children she was not willing to work the new system as a single mother.
She resigned claiming indirect discrimination
Held: PCP affected women more than men and given her 10+ years service they should have made arrangements to accommodate her personal requirements
There will be no discrimination on grounds of sex if it is an occupational requirement
What are some examples of sex occupational requirements ?
Sch 9
Jobs that call for authentic male/female characteristics - Film/play role
Considerations of decency/privacy - changing rooms
Religious/ cultural objections
Private home living etc
What is positive actions
s 159:
where employer is allowed to treat someone with protected characteristic more favourably because they are at a disadvantage
Positive action will only apply to candidates who are equally qualified
Furlong v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police [2019]
White male police officer who was heterosexual and not disabled did better on exams then BAME and LGBT people yet there were no posts for him.
Held: Furlong had been discriminated on grounds of sex race and sexual orientation. The police force went too far in applying positive action under s159 as it is only supposed to apply to candidates who are equally qualified
