Equality Act 2010 – Page 5 – Seán Crossan's Scots Law

Beardy weirdy?

A common theme of this Blog over the last few weeks concerns banning certain forms of dress or appearance (Burka bans and horse racing in a hijab published on 1 August 2019).

Imposing a ban in relation to dress codes or appearance can be problematic legally speaking because such an approach could be tantamount to indirect discrimination in terms of Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.

Several of my previous blogs have addressed the issue of indirect discrimination.

So it was with some interest that I read a story recently about Burger King’s plans to prevent male staff from wearing beards while working in its restaurants throughout the region of Catalunya/Catalonia in Spain. Immediately, I thought about the legal consequences of such a ban being introduced to UK Burger King outlets. The test for indirect discrimination is whether a provision, criterion or policy (PCP) imposed by an organisation is likely to have a disproportionately adverse effect on certain groups of individuals who possess a characteristic protected by law (in the UK, we are primarily talking about the Equality Act).

Unsurprisingly, this attempt to impose a blanket ban on Burger King’s male employees fell foul of the Spanish Constitution’s provisions on equality. I would be prepared to stick my neck out and argue that a similar result would almost certainly be replicated in the UK had Burger King attempted to introduce such a ban. I wasn’t really surprised by this outcome because Spain, as an EU member state, has very similar equality and discrimination laws to the UK. In fact, the current concept of indirect discrimination in the Equality Act 2010 is derived from EU Law.

So, who might be affected if an employer implements a blanket ban on the wearing of beards in the work place? Quite a lot of male employees as it turns out, for example, very religious and observant Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. Furthermore, members of the Russian and Greek Orthodox faith groups and Rastafarians may also face real issues complying with such a requirement imposed by the employer. In short order, such bans may infringe religious and cultural expression and may not only be a breach of the Equality Act, but could also represent a breach of human rights laws under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is always open to an organisation, of course, to argue that dress codes or enforcing strict rules about an individual’s personal appearance can be objectively justified. In the past, banning beards or regulating the length of hairstyles in the work place have been justified successfully by employers or organisations on health and safety grounds i.e. primarily concerning hygiene (see Singh v Rowntree Mackintosh (1979) ICR 554 and Panesar v Nestle Co Ltd [1980] IRLR 64 CA).

Each attempt to justify a provision, criterion or policy (PCP) will, of course, turn on its facts and it would be very foolish for organisations to think that there is some sort of magic bullet or get out of jail card which can be used in every situation to justify or excuse conduct which would otherwise amount to unlawful discrimination. Organisations should review policies on a regular basis and, if need be, this may necessitate the carrying out of an equality impact assessment.

Recently, the Royal Air Force (RAF) has significantly relaxed its total ban on male service personnel wearing beards (moustaches were permitted). This change of heart by the RAF has been motivated by the realisation that individuals from ethnic and religious minorities were being actively deterred from applying to join the service because of the ban on beards.

Even the argument that beards are unhygienic is being undermined with Professor Michael Moseley, presenter of the BBC programme “Trust Me I’m a Doctor“, highlighting recent, scientific evidence that clean shaven men represent a greater threat to hygiene than their bearded counterparts.

Links to the stories on Burger King’s attempt to ban the beard, the RAF’s change of policy and whether beards are actually unhygienic can be found below:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/31/burger-king-beard-ban-infringes-workers-rights-says-catalonia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49313406

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35350886

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 16 August 2019

Burka bans and horse racing in a Hijab

Photo by أخٌ في الله … on Unsplash

I have just been reading two, contrasting stories about Islamic dress codes which appeared in today’s UK media.

The first story comes from our close neighbour and EU partner, the Netherlands which has decided to bring in a new law banning certain forms of Islamic dress – principally the Burka, Hijab and the Niqab – from being worn by female Muslims in hospitals and schools and while travelling by public transport. This ban imitates similar initiatives in other EU member states such as Austria, Denmark, France and Germany. Those individuals who ignore or flout the ban run the risk of being fined €150. Some Dutch politicians, for example, Geert Wilders of the far right Party for Freedom would like the law to be extended in order to ban Islamic headscarves.

The second story comes from the UK and couldn’t be more different in tone. The BBC reports that a female, Muslim jockey, who wears the Hijab, has made history by winning the Magnolia Cup at Glorious Goodwood.

Links to the two stories can be found below:

http://news.sky.com/story/netherlands-burka-ban-comes-into-force-in-schools-hospitals-and-on-buses-11774887

Khadijah Mellah: Hijab-wearing jockey triumphs on Haverland and makes history

These two stories made me think about the limits of tolerance in relation to the outward signs of religious belief in our communities. Under UK and EU laws, a person’s religion is a protected characteristic and s/he has the right not to be subjected to unlawful, less favourable treatment (discrimination).

The right to enjoy protection from religious discrimination was first introduced to the mainland UK as a result of the EU Directive 2000/78/EC on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation. The laws on religious discrimination were to be found in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. It should be noted that the scope of these Regulations was limited in that they applied only to the area of employment – not, for example, the provision of goods and services.

Previously, Northern Ireland was the only part of the UK which had laws on religious discrimination – for understandable reasons given the troubled history of that part of the world. The Regulations did not extend to Northern Ireland because it already had laws in place to deal with this issue.

The Regulations have now been superseded by the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (primarily Section 10) which are much wider in scope in that they cover both religious discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services.

Additionally, Article 22 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises a person’s right to cultural and religious diversity.

Wearing Islamic dress is obviously a way in which very religious members of this community can express their religious beliefs. Reading both articles today, I found myself asking the question what would be the legal effects if a similar ban on Islamic dress was introduced in the UK?

The new UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has made disparaging remarks about forms of Islamic dress, but admittedly he does not seem willing to introduce a ban.

Countries such as Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and now the Netherlands are just as much bound by laws such as Directive 2000/78/EC and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the UK is at the time of writing, so how do they justify banning certain forms of Islamic dress?

Freedom of religion is not absolute and sometimes the State can decide that a person’s religious beliefs must take second place if they clash with other people’s human rights (e.g. sexual orientation) or general public safety goals. In the UK, discrimination less favourable treatment in connection with a person’s protected characteristics may be permitted under the Equality Act 2010 if it can be objectively justified i.e. it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Health and safety or concerns about terrorism are often grounds used by States across the EU to justify periodic crackdowns on the wearing of Islamic dress in public places.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 1 August 2019

Who’s the daddy?

Photo by Sandy Millar on Unsplash

Coming on the back of one of my recent blogs about gender reassignment (Gender Neutral? published on 25 June 2019), I spotted an interesting story appeared on Sky News today.

It concerns a legal action taken by Freddy McConnell, a multimedia journalist with The Guardian newspaper, to have himself declared the father of a child. There would seem to be nothing particularly significant about this. Mr McConnell is a transgender man and he gave birth to the child in 2018 after he had undergone gender reassignment and was no longer legally recognised as female. During the process of gender reassignment, Mr McConnell chose not to have a hysterectomy.

When he attempted to register himself as the child’s father, the registrar refused to do this – hence the lodging of the legal action before the English High Court’s Family Division.

In terms of Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, a person who has undergone or who is contemplating gender reassignment can bring a legal action under the Act if they believe that they have been subjected to unlawful, less favourable treatment (prohibited conduct).

The story has now hit the headlines because Mr McConnell had enjoyed anonymity while the action is still to be decided. He has now lost this anonymity because he participated in a documentary (partly produced by his employer) about his struggle to be named as his child’s father rather than its mother.

Other media outlets, such as The Telegraph, challenged the anonymity order as they argued that it infringed the right of journalists to comment freely on a matter of legitimate, public interest.

Human rights

Interestingly, the story then became not merely about transgender rights, but also one of human rights (in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998). There was a conflict between Mr McConnell’s right to privacy and a family life and the right of freedom of expression of journalists (Articles 8 and 10 respectively of the European Convention on Human Rights). On this particular matter, Mr McConnell has lost his attempt to remain anonymous as Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the High Court’s Family Division has found in favour of The Telegraph et al.

It remains to be seen whether Mr McConnell will win his legal action to be named as his child’s father on the birth certificate.

A link to the story on the Sky News website can be found below:

http://news.sky.com/story/man-who-gave-birth-loses-anonymity-in-his-bid-to-be-registered-as-father-on-birth-certificate-11764821

A link to Sir Andrew McFarlane’s judgement can be found below:

TT v YY [2019] EWHC 1823 (Fam) Case No: FD18F00035

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/TT-anonymity-judgment-150719.pdf

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 17 July 2019

Boxing clever?

Photo by Ryan Tang on Unsplash

In a previous blog (Indirect discrimination? published on 21 February 2019 and updated on 8 July 2019), I discussed the form of prohibited conduct known as indirect discrimination in terms of the Equality Act 2010.

Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 defines indirect discrimination:

‘A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B’s.’

Section 19(2) makes it very clear what it is meant by a discriminatory provision, criterion or practice in relation to a relevant protected characteristic:

(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,

(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,

(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Employers and service providers (and other organisations) must be particularly wary when they apply a provision, criterion or practice (a PCP) to the general workforce or the general population. It may be the case that, in applying a PCP, that an employer or service provider unwittingly treats certain individuals with a protected characteristic (e.g. women, the disabled, older people, members of a faith group or people from certain racial or ethnic groups) less favourably when compared to other individuals who do not possess this characteristic. It is always open to an employer or service provider to show that although indirect discrimination has taken place, it can be objectively justified e.g. on national security grounds or health and safety reasons (e.g. Singh v Rowntree MacKintosh [1979] ICR 554).

So, bearing the above in mind, it was with some interest that I saw a story reported by the BBC about a policy imposed by the Welsh Amateur Boxing Authority that all boxers have to be clean shaven in order to participate in matches. This rule is being challenged by Aaron Singh, who is a member of the Sikh community. Singh is claiming that the rule prevents him from boxing. As outward manifestations of their race, religion and culture, many Sikh men will grow beards. Especially religious males in the Sikh community will also wear a Dastar, pagri or pagg (forms of headwear signifying religious and cultural observance). A Kirpan – a ceremonial dagger – will also be carried by many observant Sikh males. Both male and female Sikhs will also choose to wear iron bangles and bracelets (the Kara) which have both religious and cultural significance.

If you are unfamiliar with the Sikh religion, you can access the video below for more information:

You can also find a link to an article below about Sikhs which was originally published in The Independent:

https://www.indy100.com/article/sikhs-face-discrimination-get-mistaken-for-muslims-hardayal-singh-united-sikhs-8332796

Could this rule be an example of indirect discrimination which particularly impacts (in a very negative way) on members of the Sikh community? In terms of the Equality Act 2010, Sikhs are covered by Sections 9 (Race) and 10 (Religion). Some Sikhs may not be particularly religious (in other words non-practising), but they will be covered by the protected characteristic of Race (see Mandla v Dowell–Lee [1982] UKHL 7).

Interestingly, as a point of reference, Judaism is also a protected characteristic in terms of Sections 9 and 10 of the Equality Act 2010.

In its defence the Welsh Amateur Boxing Association will be arguing the health and safety card as objective justification. Of the rule. In response, Singh is arguing that the English Amateur Boxing Association dropped its rule demanding that boxers be clean shaven.

It will be interesting to see how this dispute develops.

A link to the story on the BBC News website can be found below:

Boxing beard ban not fair says Cardiff University student

Cardiff student Aaron Singh says the rules in Wales are “not fair” and discriminatory.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also published guidance for employers and organisations about the Sikh community and its beliefs:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/288201/response/709901/attach/3/guidance%20on%20sikh%20articles%20of%20faith%20for%20scotland%20pdf.pdf

More links to stories about Sikhism and potential indirect discrimination can be found below:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/2469905/Sikh-teenagers-bangle-discrimination-win-will-impact-rules-on-uniforms.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8500712.stm

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 8 July 2019

Update

In July 2019, the Welsh Amateur Boxing Association dropped the ban on beards.

Please see link to this story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49007583

Tickets for “people of colour” … or the problem with positive discrimination

Photo by Ehimetalor Unuabona on Unsplash

Tickets for “people of colour” …

In a previous blog (The force is not with you … published on 28 February and updated on 10 June 2019), I discussed the problems associated with policies of positive discrimination.

So, it is with some interest that I read an item on Sky News today about Afrofuture Fest a music festival which was to take place in the American City of Detroit. The festival organisers had offered tickets for sale to members of the public. Absolutely nothing unusual in that readers will undoubtedly respond, but what was unusual was the fact that the price to be paid in conjunction with an ‘early bird’ promotion was to be determined by the customer’s racial origins (tickets for “people of colour”).

If you were an African American applying for tickets, you would pay less than a White American wanting to go to the gig. I admit that I was intrigued by this marketing approach and I wanted to know what were the underlying motivations of the organisers? I confess: I’m coming from a different cultural perspective here in the UK and, generally, we’re not too keen on the widespread use of positive discrimination as a tool for promoting equality.

Well, it would seem that the pricing policy was motivated by a genuine determination to ensure that African Americans (who happen to be in the disproportionately lower income section of US society) were not deterred from attending the event by high prices. Furthermore, the organisers wanted a racially diverse group of music fans to attend the festival.

All well meaning, but the event has now become mired in controversy with the organisers receiving threats from white supremacist groups and artists deciding not to perform. The ticket policy has now been scrapped.

A link to how the story was reported on Sky News can be found below:

Festival scraps cheaper ‘people of colour’ tickets after ‘white supremacist threats’
http://news.sky.com/story/festival-scraps-cheaper-people-of-colour-tickets-after-white-supremacist-threats-11758953

Positive discrimination: the legal position

Discriminating in favour of one group of people over another (whether this is motivated by a good intention or not) will most likely be regarded as an example of direct discrimination which contravenes Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.

The judgement of the House of Lords in James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 was particularly strong on this point and it was irrelevant that the Council was acting from motives of good faith i.e. to promote healthier lifestyles for female residents of the Borough. The simple fact was that the Borough Council was acting unlawfully (in breach of the then Sex Discrimination Act 1975) when it charged men for entry to the swimming pool when women were not charged for access to this facility. The Borough Council had committed an act of direct, sex discrimination.

Positive discrimination has only really been successful in the UK when the Westminster Parliament has given it the full backing of the law and, additionally, it complies with this country’s EU legal obligations.

One notable example of positive discrimination is the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 which aimed to encourage more women to enter Parliament by having all women short lists. Previously, such an attempt to promote positive action would have been illegal under the (now repealed) Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Some (male) Labour activists did, in fact, bring successful legal challenges under the former sex discrimination legislation on the grounds that they had suffered discrimination because of their gender in being automatically disqualified from the parliamentary candidates’ selection process (Jepson and Dyas-Elliott v The Labour Party and Others [1996] IRLR 116).

The other example of positive discrimination involves the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The PSNI was created in 2001 following the Belfast or Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The PSNI replaced the old Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) which was largely seen as a biased or sectarian police force by most Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland.

According to figures produced by the official Patten Report, the RUC was overwhelming Protestant in composition (91.7% to 8.3% Roman Catholic).

One of the key recommendations of the Patten Report was that:

“An equal number of Protestants and Catholics should be drawn from the pool of qualified candidates.” [para. 15.10]

This led to a deliberate 50/50 recruitment policy in which half of the candidates recruited to the PSNI had to come from a Roman Catholic background.

That said, there was significant criticism of the 50/50 recruitment policy coming from the Unionist and Loyalist community in Northern Ireland – who were never going to be reconciled to the demise of the RUC in any case. The recruitment policy was only ended in 2011 by Owen Patterson MP, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Predictably, this development did not please the Nationalist and Republican community in Northern Ireland.

Affirmative or positive action

In the United States of America, of course, there is a completely different approach to the promotion of diversity and equality from what we would understand in the UK and the European Union. The Americans, for example, are very keen on affirmative action (or positive discrimination) and often employers will speak of filling quotas i.e. recruiting a certain number of African Americans or Hispanic Americans. This practice of affirmative action or positive discrimination is an attempt by the Americans to overcome the problems of historic and entrenched racism in their society. In the UK and the European Union, we too have had our problems with under-representation of certain groups in the work-place, but any attempt to introduce positive discrimination has been much more limited in scope.

Affirmative action has its limits: the ticket policy at Afrofuture Fest would, however, appear to be a breach of the Civil Rights Act 1964 (Title II) which states that:

“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The UK and EU approaches to positive discrimination

Limited positive action or discrimination has, for some time, been tolerated by the Court of Justice of the European Union where employers gave preference, as part of an equality policy, to female candidates over suitably qualified male candidates in order to address gender imbalances in the work-place (see Kalanke Freie Hansestadt Bremen (1995) C-450/93 and Badeck and Others (2000) C-158/97).

The Equality Act 2010 does, admittedly, permit what is referred to as ‘positive action’ in fairly limited circumstances and it has been observed that it does not really advance the law very much in this area.

Certainly, in terms of the public sector equality duty, organisations may be permitted to take specified forms positive action in the work-place to eradicate or minimise forms of discriminations e.g. ‘the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding’ (see Section 149(5) of the Equality Act)

Section 158 of the Act permits an employer to take positive action to help individuals with a protected characteristic to overcome or minimise such a disadvantage. Such action on the part of the employer must, however, be a proportionate means of achieving this aim.

Section 159 also permits an employer to take positive action in recruitment and promotion in relation to people with protected characteristics. The employer will only really be able to utilise this provision if candidates for a job or a promoted post have the same or similar qualifications. In such situations, the employer will able to consider if candidates with protected characteristics are at a disadvantage or are under represented in matters of recruitment or promotion.

There is one important exception to the rules on positive action contained in the Act: it will not be illegal for an employer to treat a disabled person more favourably in comparison to a non-disabled person.

Conclusion

In the UK, positive discrimination in recruitment can be lawful under very limited circumstances. In other words, it is a practice which, if objectively justified, can be used to overcome historical patterns of discrimination e.g. to address the woefully low numbers of female politicians or the under-representation of Roman Catholics in the Police Service in Northern Ireland.

Such arrangements permitting limited positive discrimination tend to be governed by ‘sunset clauses’ i.e. they have a built in expiry date, so they will not last forever. Furthermore, positive discrimination is really only legitimate in so called ‘tie-break’ situations where several applicants have the same qualifications and experience, but as a matter of public policy, for example, a female or minority ethnic applicant is given preference in order to address historic diversity imbalances in that particular work-place.

The Americans, on the other hand, have tended to pursue a very explicit policy of positive discrimination or affirmative action by placing an emphasis on the filling of quotas – either, for example, in employment or education. Such an approach places a legal obligation on employers and service providers (colleges and universities) to ensure that certain minimum numbers of people from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds are given a job or a place in training or education.

As we have seen with the ticket policy for events such as Afrofuture Fest, positive discrimination can be controversial and potentially unlawful.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 8 July 2019

Ouch!

Photo by Seán J Crossan

A salutary tale from Northern Ireland about the dangers of unequal pay for employers.

Margaret Mercer, a Belfast solicitor, has been awarded £273,000 in compensation by the Industrial Tribunal (yes, they still exist in Northern Ireland) after she won her equal pay claim against her employer, C&H Jefferson (a law firm).

The Tribunal concluded that Ms Mercer had been doing “like work” when a comparison was made with 4 other colleagues who held the rank of salaried partner in the firm. Three of these individuals were men.

It should be recalled that, under equal pay legislation in the UK, individuals can bring claims on a number of grounds:

They are engaged in like work with their comparator(s);
They are engaged in work of equal value with their comparator(s); or
They are engaged in work rated equivalent with their comparator(s).

C&H Jefferson has stated that it intends to appeal the Tribunal ruling.

More details about Ms Mercer’s claim can be found below in the BBC article:

Belfast solicitor wins £273k in equal pay case

Margaret Mercer found out she was not being paid the same as some colleagues at the law firm C&H Jefferson.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 26 June 2019

Gender neutral?

Photo by Michael Prewett on Unsplash

On 20 June 2019, the Scottish Government stated that, following a consultation in 2018, it would be bringing forward a Gender Recognition Bill in order to reform the current Gender Recognition Act 2004. It remains unclear, however, when exactly the Government will introduce the draft legislation. Shirley-Anne Sommerville MSP, the Government Minister with responsibility for this issue has publicly admitted that there is still a need to build a “maximum consensus” before things become clearer.

A link to information about the proposed Bill can be found below:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/review-of-gender-recognition-act-2004/

Gender reassignment (or even gender identity) seems to have become a particularly fraught issue recently as a number of diverse media articles demonstrates:

Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan warned by police over ‘transphobia’ Twitter row

http://news.sky.com/story/father-ted-co-creator-graham-linehan-warned-by-police-over-transphobia-twitter-row-11520340

Transgender prison inmate who sexually assaulted women jailed for life

http://news.sky.com/story/transgender-prison-inmate-who-sexually-assaulted-women-jailed-for-life-11523584

First UK transgender prison unit to open

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47434730

Sam Smith comes out as non-binary: ‘I’m not male or female’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47612616

My passport gender should be non-binary

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48126998

Retired naval chief criticises gender neutral ships

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48037933

Jacqueline Wilson: Gender reassignment for children makes me very worried’

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.240419/data/8882366/index.html

Munroe Bergdorf: NSPCC cuts ties with transgender activist

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48572955

‘Race science’ is rearing its ugly head – again and black women are the target

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/caster-semenya-race-science-guinea-pig-saartjie-baartman-a8971081.html

Political controversy

In 2018, the Labour Party became embroiled in difficulties concerning the issue of whether trans women should be included in all female short lists for the selection of parliamentary candidates. Senior members of the Party – Jeremy Corbyn, Dawn Butler, Harriet Harman and Angela Rayner are supportive of this initiative.

The Standing for Women Campaign ran a (fiercely debated) poster ad during the Labour Party’s Conference in Liverpool focusing on the definition of a woman. This poster caused something of a storm and was later removed by the billboard company amid accusations of hate speech and discrimination against transgender people:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is women_poster-1.png

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, one of the activists behind the poster was quoted in The Spectator (11 September 2018) saying:

‘I was a supporter of the Labour Party for years, but I can’t now in all good conscience support a political party that is hellbent on destroying women’s rights. But this is wider than just the Labour party. The word ‘woman’ matters. It means adult human female. If we expand that definition to say that ‘woman’ includes men who claim to feel like women, so as not to hurt their feelings, the word will become meaningless. As will the rights that generations of women before us fought for.’

Gender Identity Research & Education Society

Sporting controversies

It’s not merely the world of politics which witnessed passionate debates about gender reassignment. The sporting world has also seen some fierce clashes between female and transgender athletes. Former Olympic medalists, Kelly Holmes and Sharron Davies; and former Marathon champion, Paula Radcliffe have all expressed caution about permitting trans-women athletes to compete in women’s sporting events. Martina Navratilova, the former Tennis champion was even accused of being a “transphobe” when she suggested that the inclusion of trans-women in sporting events could be viewed as tantamount to “cheating”.

Furthermore, the ongoing scrutiny concerning the gender of the South African athlete, Caster Semenya continues to divide many people in the sporting world.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004

In April 2005, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force. This Act, which received the Royal Assent on 1 July 2004, currently provides people who have undergone gender reassignment procedures with legal recognition in relation to their newly acquired gender identity. The legislation applies across the United Kingdom and was passed by the Westminster Parliament.

Legal recognition of a person’s decision to reassign the sex or gender they have had from birth will follow from the issuing of a full gender recognition certificate by a Gender Recognition Panel. The individual applying for such a certificate must be able to satisfy certain criteria – the most important criterion will centre around the submission of medical evidence of physiological changes by the applicant.

Since the introduction of the Act, it has long been the case, therefore, that it will amount be unlawful discrimination to treat a person less favourably because s/he has undergone a a process of gender reassignment.

This now means that the decision by the House of Lords in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v A (2004) which held that the police force could rightfully refuse to employ an individual who had undergone a sex change as a constable has been reversed. Such treatment would now be regarded as an example of unlawful discrimination.

That said, in addition to UK anti-discrimination and equality laws, the Court of Justice of the European Union (as long ago as the case of P v S & Cornwall County Council (1996))held that discriminatory treatment of people having undergone gender reassignment was a breach of the Equal Treatment Directive. The individual in question had been dismissed from employment because she undergone a gender reassignment operation.

In Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2006) the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a person (Richards) who was born male and then underwent gender reassignment to become female was entitled to claim a pension that would have been payable to a woman at age 60.

The individual in question had suffered less favourable treatment and the UK Government’s insistence that it would only begin to pay a pension to the individual in question from her 65th birthday onwards was an example of discriminatory treatment. In other words, the pensions authority was continuing to treat Richards as a man and was not taking into account the fact that gender reassignment had taken place.

In any event, the Richards case (above) is really of historical interest as the legal situation has greatly improved for any person having undergone gender reassignment. Such a person will now be issued with an official gender recognition certificate (see below) which means that they will be entitled to receive a pension from the date that such a certificate was issued.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has long held that discriminatory treatment of people having undergone gender reassignment is a breach of the Equal Treatment Directive.

The Scottish Government’s proposed Gender Recognition Bill

The proposed Bill is controversial because some Scottish National Party MSPs and MPs (e.g. Joanna Cherry QC, Ash Denham, Kate Forbes and Lindsay Martin) are concerned about its main objective: that an individual who wishes to undergo gender reassignment will no longer have to provide medical evidence to the Gender Recognition Panel. The Panel currently determines the gender or sex of individuals who wish to undergo reassignment by issuing them with a certificate:

https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/joanna-cherry-qc-signs-letter-opposing-rush-to-reform-gender-law

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48037152

Under the Scottish Government’s proposals, an individual could effectively self-identify as a person of the opposite sex without having to undergo invasive medical procedures and provide the evidence of this fact in order to obtain recognition from the Panel.

What would be required of the individual in question under the proposed legislation are the following:

A statutory declaration to the effect that they have decided to change gender or sex;
The declaration will contain a statement that the individual has been living as a man or a woman for at a minimum of 3 months;
The individual will have to undertake a compulsory or mandatory period of 3 months to reflect on the decision to undergo gender reassignment (no gender recognition certificate will be issued until this period has been completed).

Two academics at the University of Edinburgh, Dr Kath Murray and Lucy Hunter Blackburn have also been extremely critical about the Scottish Government’s approach to transgender rights generally.

A link to an article in The Holyrood Magazine discussing the research conducted by the two academics can be found below:

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/scottish-trans-policy-detrimental-women-and-girls

The Equality Act 2010

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 addresses the issue of a person who has undergone gender reassignment in the following terms:

(1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

As we shall see, when discuss guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (in the paragraph below), the Equality Act 2010 does not actually require a person to have undergone physical or physiological changes in order to be regarded as possessing the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Statutory Code on Employment issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission contains a number of examples which demonstrate discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment:

Example 1

A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of his life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully passes as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would be protected as someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Example 2

A person born physically male lets her friends know that she intends to reassign her sex. She attends counselling sessions to start the process. However, she decides to go no further. She is protected under the law because she has undergone part of the process of reassigning her sex.

Example 3

Before a formal dinner organised by his employer, a worker tells his colleagues that he intends to come to the event dressed as a woman ‘for a laugh’. His manager tells him not to do this, as it would create a bad image of the company. Because the worker has no intention of undergoing gender reassignment, he would not have a claim for discrimination.

On the other hand, if the employer had said the same thing to a worker driven by their gender identity to cross-dress as a woman as part of the process of reassigning their sex, this could amount to direct discrimination because of gender reassignment.

It is worth noting in the above examples 1 and 2 that the individuals in question have not actually undergone the start of a physical transformation from one gender to another, but nonetheless both are protected in terms of Section 7 of the Equality Act.

Conclusion

A person who has undergone gender reassignment will have a protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act 2010. Currently, the process by which an individual undergoes gender reassignment is laid down by the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This legislation was passed by the UK Parliament and applies across the country.

The Scottish Government has now announced that it intends to introduce a Gender Recognition Bill to reform the existing legislation. At the time of writing, it remains unclear when this will happen.

The purpose of the reforms is to move away from an emphasis on medical evidence to support the issuing of a gender recognition certificate to a system of self-declaration of gender (albeit under certain conditions being satisfied).

This subject has generated a lot of (often heated) debate and will probably continue to do so.

Postscript

The proposed Gender Recognition Bill continues to cause controversy – Wings over Scotland – the biggest pro-independence blog in Scotland edited by Stuart Campbell has found itself at the centre of the storm this week (4 July 2019). Campbell criticised the prominent nationalist MP, Mhairi Black for appearing on a YouTube channel where she appeared to attack those who were not in favour of the Gender Recognition proposals.

Needless to say this has generated a lot of comments by readers of the blog.

Links to Stuart Campbell’s blog entry and Mhairi Black’s Video can be found below:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/no-independence-day/#more-111060

https://youtu.be/9FlbIes2mlg

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 25 June, 5 & 29 July 2019

Sickness absence

Photo by Ali Yahya on Unsplash

An issue which many employers will have to deal with is that of long-term sickness and/or frequent absences of certain employees.

In terms of Section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it is open to employers to argue that a dismissal was fair when they terminated the employment relationship by reason of an individual’s sickness absences. The employer would justify such a dismissal on grounds of capability (meaning “in relation to an employee, means his capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality”).

This is subject, however, to the requirements laid down in Section 98(4) of the Act as to whether the employer has acted reasonably or unreasonably and also having regard to the “equity and substantial merits of the case”.

I also stress to students and to members of the wider public, that an employer does not have a blank cheque (or an automatic right) to dismiss an employee on the basis of sickness absences. Many employers will rightly argue that they have a business to run and they must monitor sickness absence amongst employees.

A particularly problematic issue is the use by many employers of sickness absence trigger points. This is where employers designate a set number of days (usually within a 12 month period) and affected employees may find themselves being summoned to a meeting which, in reality, is a thinly disguised disciplinary action which could ultimately lead to dismissal on capability grounds.

The problem here for employers is that the use of such trigger points can be entirely arbitrary in nature. In other words, they are blunt instrument which take little or no account of individual personal circumstances.

What if the employee in question has a disability in terms of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010? In such cases, employers would be well advised to tread extremely carefully when dealing with members of the workforce who have (or might have) the protected characteristic of disability. Additionally, a female employee who is pregnant (and is suffering from short term ill health e.g. morning sickness) may fall foul of the trigger point. Again, caution should be exercised here because a pregnant employee will be entitled to the protection of Section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.

Let’s also discuss employees who are undergoing gender reassignment and, as this involves a prolonged medical process, it may be the case that this will involve a significant amount of absences from work for the person undergoing this process. Section 16 of the Equality Act 2010 makes it very clear that an employer who treats such an individual less favourably by, perhaps, subjecting them to disciplinary action on account of these absences will be acting unlawfully.Let’s also discuss employees who are undergoing gender reassignment.

Indirect discrimination

When applying policies (practices or criteria) to the workforce, employers will have to be very much aware of straying into the perilous territory of the prohibited conduct known as indirect discrimination (Section 19: Equality Act 2010).

The Equality and Human Rights Commission provides guidance on what constitutes indirect discrimination in its Statutory Code of Practice on Employment:

Example 1

An employer has a ‘no headwear’ policy for its staff. Unless this policy can be objectively justified, this will be indirect discrimination against Sikh men who wear the turban, Muslim women who wear a headscarf and observant Jewish men who wear a skullcap as manifestations of their religion.

Example 2

Requiring a UK-based qualification, when equivalent qualifications obtained abroad would also meet the requirement for that particular level of knowledge or skill, may lead to indirect discrimination because of race, if the requirement cannot be objectively justified.

The concept of indirect discrimination in Section 19 of the Equality Act applies to all of the protected characteristics with the exception of pregnancy and maternity (which are specifically addressed elsewhere in the Act (Sections 17 and 18)).

A gung ho or insensitive approach by the employer may be very costly in the longer term as regards dealing with sickness absences (especially as an injury to feelings element could be part of an Employment Tribunal award).

A disability, for example, will affect not only the individual’s ability to perform her job, but also her ability to perform normal day-to-day activities. If this is the case, the employer will have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, in terms of Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 to the employee’s working conditions, in order to aid her return to work.

A failure to consider reasonable adjustments or to dismiss out of hand certain adjustments may constitute disability discrimination in terms of the Act.

Furthermore, it may be extremely ill advised for employers to place employees with disabilities on some sort of attendance monitor system. This could be an example of harassment (Section 28: Equality Act) and, if the employee in question was eventually dismissed, it may represent a breach of Section 15 of the Act i.e. discrimination arising from disability.

Section 15 is an area where many employers may be caught out and, consequently, they may treat a disabled person less favourably. The issue often arises when employers monitor attendance and time-keeping of employees. It may be the case that disabled employees face greater difficulty when it comes to maintaining an acceptable level of attendance and time-keeping and are thus placed at a disadvantage in comparison with their non-disabled colleagues.

Typically, employers will impose sanctions on all employees who do not meet attendance and time-keeping targets and they will doubtless argue that the issue disability has nothing to do with the way in which they treated an individual.

An example from the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Statutory Code on Employment makes it very clear the dangers of such a blanket approach being taken by employers (which could leave them open to legal action under Section 15):

Example

A disabled worker periodically requires a limited amount of time off work to attend medical appointments related to the disability. The employer has an attendance management policy which results in potential warnings and ultimately dismissal if the worker’s absence exceeds 20 days in any 12-month period. A combination of the worker’s time off for disability-related medical appointments and general time off for sickness results in the worker consistently exceeding the 20 day limit by a few days. The worker receives a series of warnings and is eventually dismissed. This is likely to amount to disability discrimination.

Discrimination arising as a consequence of disability

Some of the pitfalls which employers face when dealing with employees who are disabled and who have accumulated a number of sickness absences which may trigger the organisation’s intervention policy was demonstrated in a case from 2018.

DL Insurance Ltd v O’Connor Appeal No. UKEAT/0230/17/LA [2018]

O’Connor, a disabled employee, was disciplined by DL Insurance because she had accumulated 60 days sickness absence during a 12 month period (she had been given a final written warning). Her employer had fallen foul of Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 because both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal were of the view that disciplinary action to deal with her level of sickness was not a proportionate response given that she was a disabled person within the meaning of the Act. Her employer was aware (and had accepted previously) that O’Connor was a disabled person. Reasonable adjustments (principally flexible arrangements) had been put in place by the employer as per their duty under the Act.

Significantly, the employer had failed to involve an independent occupational health service in the matter before it made the decision to discipline O’Connor AND the manager charged with carrying out disciplinary action had not bothered to obtain a full grasp of the facts of the situation i.e. by going to discuss how what impact the absences were having on O’Connor’s colleagues. In particular, the failure by the employer to involve occupational health services in O’Connor’s case was a breach of the company’s own procedures.

In the employer’s defence, however, the Employment Appeal Tribunal did note that O’Connor had been treated sympathetically in the past and that more latitude had been given to her personally in relation to the number of sickness absences she had accrued. This was not enough and by placing O’Connor under disciplinary sanctions, the employer had subjected her to unlawful. less favourable treatment in that she would not receive contractual sick pay if she was absent from work in the future.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal placed particular emphasis on the fact that the employer had failed to explain how a written warning (with all the implications for O’Connor) would actually lead to an improvement in her attendance at work. It was noted that the employer accepted that O’Connor’s absences were genuine and unavoidable and were caused by her disability.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b191137ed915d2cb78ace3a/DL_Insurance_Services_Ltd_v_Mrs_S_O_Connor_UKEAT_0230_17_LA.pdf

Conclusion

Dealing with employee sickness absence (whether of a short or long term nature) can be extremely problematic for employers. The blunt instrument approach where arbitrary trigger points are used to monitor and deal with sickness absence can store up problems for employers over the distance. Quite simply, such policies, criteria or practices (PCPs) may have a disproportionately, adverse effect on certain groups of people within the workforce e.g. individuals with disabilities. There is a very real danger for employees that they end up breaching provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and their argument that a capability dismissal was fair will fall foul on deaf ears at any subsequent Employment Tribunal hearing. Proceed with caution might be the best advice when dealing with employees who have poor sickness records.

Sexism in the UK

Photo by 🇨🇭 Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum on Unsplash

If you read this Blog fairly regularly, you will be aware that the issue of equality (or should that be the lack of equality?) is a common theme.

Depressingly in 2019, print and online media are full of stories which reinforce the fact that, as a society, the UK still has a long way to go in terms of gender equality. From the entrenched gender pay gap; to pregnancy and maternity discrimination; and the prevalence of incompetent male leaders, it still looks very much like a man’s world.

If you don’t believe me or think that I’m painting an overly bleak picture, please read about the latest research carried out by the Young Women’s Trust which found that 2 out of every 5 female managers believes that the place where the work suffers from sexism.

Despite the presence of legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, women still struggle for equality in the work-place. Still don’t believe me? Just ask the female employees of City of Glasgow Council who had to fight tooth and nail to achieve equal pay earlier this year.

A link to a press release from the Young Women’s Trust can be found below:

https://www.youngwomenstrust.org/what_we_do/media_centre/press_releases/987_two_in_five_female_bosses_say_their_workplace_is_sexist

A link to an article in The Independent about the Trust’s research can be found below:

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.200619/data/8965916/index.html

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 20 June 2019

Is it cos I is black?

Ali G was (and still is) the memorable creation of the comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen. Ali G’s catchphrase was “Is it cos I is black?” and the comedian famously put this to a senior British police officer when he gatecrashed a political protest during a sketch for one of his TV shows on Channel 4.

Sacha Baron Cohen was making a very serious point when he wrote and planned such escapades: he was satirising the widespread racist sterotyping of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups in the UK by their fellow White British citizens. When the character of Ali G first made appearances on Channel 4’s The 11 o’clock Show in 1999, it’s worth remembering that it was less than 6 years after the murder of the black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, in London.

Coincidentally, in 1999, Sir William Macpherson, a retired judge of the English High Court, had published his Report on the Stephen Lawrence murder and one of his most famous conclusions concerned the levels of “institutional racism” in the Metropolitan Police Service (paragraphs 4.45 – 6.63).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

Several years ago, I attended an event for Black History Month and members of the panel were recounting their experiences of racism in the UK. Glasgow City Councillor, Graham Campbell told the story of his cousin who worked at Ford’s Dagenham car plant who constantly had his locker broken into and vandalised by his white, work colleagues. More often than not, his work tools were stolen from the locker. Eventually, this young man started to carry his tools to and from the Ford plant in order to avoid having to replace them. He was stopped and searched regularly by the same police officers who asked him each time if the tools were for burglaries. This was the kind of harassment that black people typically experienced in Britain of the 1970s.

Racial stereotyping which leads to people from certain ethnic groups suffering (unlawful) less favourable treatment is an example of direct discrimination in terms of Sections 9 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010. Repeated examples of harassment on grounds of race would also constitute breaches of Sections 9 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010.

So, it was with some interest that I read an article in The Independent on Saturday 15 June 2019 which recounted an incident which had taken place in Maidstone in Kent whereby a white police officer had assumed that a black man must be a criminal just because he happened to be in an area which was perceived to be ‘white’.

In England and Wales, you are much more likely to be stopped and searched by the police if you happen to come from the black community:

It doesn’t seem as if attitudes to race in certain sections of the police have moved on much from the 1970s.

A link to the story in The Independent can be found below:

Officer assumed black man was criminal in ‘white area’

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.150619/data/8959141/index.html

Not much change in 2025 or that will be the Déjà vu

My article is now over 6 years’ old and it doesn’t appear that much has changed in the Metropolitan Police. True, the current Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley has managed to dismiss 1400 officers who were the subject of misconduct allegations, but allegations of racism, Islamophobia and misogyny continue to dog the UK’s largest Police force.

On 7 November 2025, it was reported by the BBC and other media outlets that a review carried out by consultants, HR Rewired, had uncovered “systemic racism” in the Metropolitan Police and that anti-Black racism was “baked” into the force.

Readers will find a link to the BBC Article below:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1lq711n2e2o

This absolutely withering Review of London’s Police Service comes off the back of recent revelations by the BBC’s Panorama programme, where an undercover journalist exposed the discriminatory attitudes of many serving officers at London’s Charing Cross Police Station. Six of these officers have since been dismissed by the Met for misconduct and, surely, more dismissals must follow given the pressure that Sir Mark Rowley is under.

Links to articles on the BBC website about the Panorama programme and its aftermath can be found below:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dqvp1exxxo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zm84m5jlo

Regarding Police Stop and Search powers, statistics from the House of Commons Library shows that people identifying as Black or Black British “were searched at a rate 3.7 times higher than those from a White ethnic group across England and Wales in the year to March 2024.”

A link to the figures from the House of Commons Library can be found below:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0057/#

Related Blog Articles:

https://seancrossansscotslaw.com/2020/06/10/when-black-lives-didnt-matter/

https://seancrossansscotslaw.com/2020/04/13/no-blacks-no-irish-no-dogs-we-like-to-think-that-such-signs-are-a-thing-of-the-bad-old-days-in-housing-law-what-about-no-dss-tenants-some-recent-legal-actions-suggest-that-such/

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 18 June 2019 and 7 November 2025