Equality Act 2010 – Page 7 – Seán Crossan's Scots Law

Segregation

The word segregation has very negative associations and we often think of the American Deep South before the victory of the Civil Rights’ Movement in the 1960s. In more recent times, we think of Apartheid era South Africa and its official policy of segregating the different racial groups.

Segregation on racial grounds would constitute direct discrimination in terms of the Equality Act 2010.

In its code of practice, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has previously used the following example of segregation which would be unlawful:

Example

A British marketing company which employs predominantly British staff recruits Polish nationals and seats them in a separate room nicknamed ‘Little Poland’. The company argues that they have an unofficial policy of seating the Polish staff separately from British staff so that they can speak amongst themselves in their native language without disturbing the staff who speak English. This is segregation, as the company has a deliberate policy of separating staff because of race.

A story (first reported by The Guardian) focused on segregation at a housing development in England. The developers were not prepared to allow housing association tenants on the site to have access to the recreational facilities. Only those individuals who had purchased properties at the development were entitled to make use of them.

On the face of it, this may be another example of the (social) class divide in the UK and no amount of legislation has managed to eradicate this problem. That said, a deliberate policy of segregation as operated by the developers might be capable of legal challenge if it could be demonstrated that the policy was leading to indirect discrimination in connection with a person’s protected characteristics.

I can’t help wondering if the developer carried out an equality impact assessment study before implementing the policy? Indirect discrimination, of course, occurs when an individual or an organisation operates a policy, criterion or practice (PCP) which has a disproportionately adverse effect on a certain group of people.

In a previous Blog (Indirect Discrimination published on 21 February 2019), I discussed this form of discrimination in relation to a story from New York.

It may be the case that a higher proportion of people from minority ethnic groups or non-white British citizens or EU nationals may be tenants of the rented accommodation at the development. We could also have more single parent families living in the rented properties who are headed by a female.

Several of the tenants are looking into the possibility of raising a legal challenge. Although, by the time that the story had gained national publicity, the developer was reconsidering its position.

Links to the story can be found below:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-play-children-in-social-housing-blocked-from-communal-playground

U-turn over ‘segregating’ children at London housing development

Postscript

In July 2019, the UK Government announced plans to introduce legislation in England which would effectively put an end to the practice by developers of having separate entrances and facilities (in effect segregation) for private owners and public sector tenants living in housing developments.

In Scotland, housing policy falls within the legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament.

A link to the story about the proposed legislation as reported by the BBC can be found below:

Ministers pledge to end ‘poor doors’ in new build housing

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 1 April and 22 July 2019

The Gender Pay Gap

Photo by Suad Kamardeen on Unsplash

According to data released by the UK Government’s Equalities Office, the gender pay gap is still depressingly wide in 2019. Yes, this is depressing given the fact that, nearly 50 years ago, the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed into law (although it wasn’t brought into force until 1975). The law on equal pay is now, of course, contained in the Equality Act 2010. It is also an area which has also been heavily influenced by EU Law.

Saturday 30 March 2019 was the final date for public sector organisations (employing over 250 people) to submit data on their gender pay gap to the UK Government. Private companies have until 4 April 2019 to submit this information. Thousands of organisations have left this to the last minute or failed to submit the information at all.

The gender pay gap problem is particularly acute in the UK university sector as the BBC reported today:

Big university Gender Pay gap revealed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47723950

The BBC article contains a useful link allowing employees to calculate the pay gap at their organisation.

On Friday 29 March 2019, The Guardian reported that the gender pay gap amongst male and female graduates is widening (so not a positive picture overall):

Graduate gender pay gap is widening, official figures reveal

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/29/graduate-gender-pay-gap-is-widening-official-figures-reveal

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 30 March 2019

Mishandling redundancy?

Photo by Casey Botticello on Unsplash

An interesting story appeared in today’s Independent newspaper about allegations of racism directed against the office of Tom Watson MP, the Deputy Leader of the UK Labour Party.

The allegations (and they are allegations I would stress at this point) concern claims by a former employee of Mr Watson’s that she was unfairly selected for redundancy. Sarah Goulbourne, the former employee in question is alleging that she lost her post because of her race and/or ethnicity (she is of Afro-Caribbean descent). A person’s race is, of course, a protected characteristic in terms of the Equality Act 2010 and s/he has a right not to be subjected to unlawful discrimination or less favourable treatment.

A link to the story can be found below:

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.270319/data/8841231/index.html

In terms of the Employment Rights Act 1996, redundancy can be a potentially fair reason for dismissing an employee – if handled correctly and fairly.

If, however, a person was selected for redundancy because they possessed a protected characteristic such as race, this would be extremely problematic for the employer. If racial discrimination could be proved by the ex-employee, the dismissal or termination of the contract on grounds of redundancy would almost certainly be automatically unfair.

Employers can access very useful advice about redundancy handling (and presumably how to get it right) from the ACAS website:

Click to access Redundancy-handling-accessible-version.pdf

It will be interesting to see if the case proceeds any further.

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 27 March 2019

Veganism = human cruelty?

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of my interest in philosophical beliefs and whether these are capable of protection in terms of the Equality Act 2010. It seems to be an area of law which is being developed on a fairly regular basis – often with pretty surprising results.

The Employment Tribunal decided, for example, in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd t/a Orchard Park ET /3105555/2009 that a belief in the sanctity of both human and animal life could constitute a legally protected philosophical belief.

Several of my previous entries have looked at whether veganism could be a philosophical belief. This issue could soon be decided by the outcome of an Employment Tribunal case lodged at the end of 2018 (Casamitjana v League Against Cruel Sports).

What about anti-veganism? To be honest I’d never heard of this before, but a story on Sky News caught my attention:

Veganism is human cruelty’: Protester eats raw pig’s head outside vegan festival

http://news.sky.com/story/protester-eats-raw-pigs-head-outside-vegan-festival-11674741

A YouTuber going by the name of Sv3rige ate a pig’s head outside Vegfest, a vegan festival in Brighton to draw attention to his belief that “veganism is human cruelty”.

Sv3rige’s explained his motivation to Sky News:

“We did it – it was eight of us – because veganism is malnutrition and you can’t get over 15 nutrients from plants and some of us are ex-vegans who got sick because of it.”

A crass publicity stunt or a genuine attempt to highlight someone’s deeply held beliefs?

Food for thought indeed!

Copyright Seán J Crossan, 26 March 2019

Watchdogs

In an earlier post published today (No more heartbreak hotel?), I discussed the work of regulatory bodies such as the Competition and Markets Authority.

Another body which does a lot of sterling work on behalf of the public is the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is the body charged with the responsibility of enforcing the equality laws of the United Kingdom.

Recently, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has taken an interest in highlighting (and challenging) allegations of unlawful, less favourable treatment.

The Commission has made known its intention to investigate the British Broadcasting Corporation (in respect of sex discrimination involving pay) and the British Labour Party (for alleged anti-semitism).

Links to these stories can be found below:

‘Watchdog investigates BBC over ‘pay discrimination’’

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.130319/data/8819431/index.html

Labour antisemitism: equalities watchdog opens investigation

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/07/labour-antisemitism-equalities-watchdog-opens-investigation

Copyright – Seán J Crossan, 14 March 2019

Braveheart?

Photo by Petia Koleva on Unsplash

In a previous post published on 22 January 2019 (Philosophical beliefs (or you’d better believe it!), I drew attention to the ongoing of Employment Tribunal case of Christopher McEleny against the Ministry of Defence.

Mr McEleny is an SNP councillor for Inverclyde and some time ago he ran for the Party’s Deputy Leadership post. In his day job, Mr McEleny was employed as an electrician by the UK Ministry of Defence at one of its sites in Beith, Ayrshire.

When his employer found out that Mr McEleny was running for the Deputy Leadership post, he claims that was pulled in to a meeting and grilled about his views on Trident amongst other things. He also had his security clearance revoked and was suspended. Although he was reinstated, Mr McEleny later decided to leave his job with the MOD.

Mr McEleny brought a claim under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 alleging that he had suffered direct discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs i.e. his belief in Scottish independence as a concept which forms and influences many of his decisions in life.

At a Preliminary Hearing in July 2018, the Employment Tribunal Judge ruled that belief in Scottish independence could constitute a philosophical belief which was capable of being protected under the Equality Act 2010. It should be noted that Mr McEleny was able to demonstrate that many of the decisions that he makes and the ways in which he chooses to live his life are firmly based on his belief in Scottish independence. It is important to appreciate that him merely being a member of the SNP was not enough: you have demonstrate that you live by your beliefs.

The Ministry of Defence disagreed with this finding and appealed. Employment Tribunal Frances Eccles has now considered the appeal and has decided that a belief in Scottish independence can constitute a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010.

Mr McEleny’s claim must still proceed to a full Employment Tribunal Hearing in which he will have to demonstrate that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination by reason of his philosophical beliefs.

A link to an article about the latest turn in Mr McEleny’s case can be found below:

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/judge-upholds-ruling-belief-independence-protected-under-equality-law-religion

Copyright – Seán J Crossan, 12 March 2019

Born leaders?

Photo by Brooke Lark on Unsplash

International Women’s Day

As today is International Women’s Day (Friday 8 March 2019), I thought I would discuss the serious problem of the lack of females in senior management positions in many organisations.

I use the words ‘serious problem’ quite deliberately because the lack of women in senior positions means that many employers are ignoring (either deliberately or unconsciously) a vast reservoir of skill and talent.

Yes, astonishingly, in 2019 it would seem that the ‘glass ceiling’ is still firmly in place. The phrase ‘glass ceiling’ was first used in 1978 by Marilyn Loden, an American management consultant and encapsulated the frustrating (and all too painful) situation that many competent women have experienced in the work-place. They can see all the way to the top of the career ladder, but somewhere on the way up they will hit an invisible barrier or obstacle which will prevent them from progressing further. In an interview with the BBC in 2017, Loden opined that the phrase was still as relevant as it had been in 1978:

100 Women: ‘Why I invented the glass ceiling phrase’

Workplace consultant Marilyn Loden coined the phrase “the glass ceiling” 39 years ago but says it is still as relevant as ever.

The view from the Institute of Directors and Cranfield School of Management

Charlotte Valeur, Chief Executive of the UK Institute of Directors (IoD), has been more direct about this problem. In an interview with The Guardian, to coincide with International Women’s Day, Ms Valeur bluntly accused FTSE companies of “lying” when they claimed that they found it difficult to recruit enough females or ethnic minority candidates to serve on boards of directors:

““Do we really think that’s difficult? It’s a lie. It’s not difficult. … I will be very unpopular with FTSE 100 [companies], but I don’t actually mind, because it’s not true that it’s difficult.”

Interestingly, Ms Valeur goes on to say that she would campaign for new laws to promote diversity unless UK based organisations started to take the problem of the lack of women in boardrooms seriously. In Ms Valeur’s opinion the current equality laws do not seem to be fulfilling their intended objectives.

A link to the article in The Guardian containing the interview with Ms Valeur can be found below:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/08/exclusive-iod-chair-charlotte-valeur-firms-lying-about-appointing-women-improve-diversity

Valeur’s analysis appears to be borne out by recent research carried out by Cranfield School of Business as part of its annual Female FTSE Index for 2018. The Report appears to show that the numbers of women in CEO roles in FTSE 100 companies has “remained static” and, in FTSE 250 companies, the numbers have “declined sharply”:

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/som/expertise/changing-world-of-work/gender-and-leadership/female-ftse-index

Legislative intervention

Historically, women have faced very real obstacles which have actively undermined their chances of advancement and promotion in the work-place. They have simply not been valued in comparison with their male colleagues. Gender or sex discrimination has also manifested itself in unequal pay, pregnancy and maternity discrimination and harassment.

Despite decades of legislative intervention to combat sex discrimination, we still hear about depressing stories such as the one below:

Maternity discrimination: ‘Having a baby cost me my job’

Sarah Rees, who was made redundant while on maternity leave, is calling for changes.

Somewhat depressingly, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) “published analysis this week that showed there is a 17.9 per cent difference in the amount men and women typically earn”:

https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.090319/data/8814226/index.html

Many women working for City of Glasgow Council will be well aware of this having just settled a massive equal pay claim in January/February 2019.

Admittedly, over the last 40 years or so, the UK Parliament has attempted to address (and redress) the issue of sex discrimination generally by passing domestic legislation (e.g. the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and, most recently, the Equality Act 2010); and by implementing EU legislation (e.g. Equal Treatment Directives, Equal Pay Directives and the Part-time Workers’ Directive). And yet, despite all of these measures (and more), the question which still needs to be asked is why sex discrimination in the work-place is still so prevalent?

Positive discrimination?

In a previous post published on 28 February 2019 (The force is not with you …), I discussed the issue of positive discrimination. Could positive discrimination be a way forward to break the male stranglehold on senior management positions? This may seem like a solution but, as we have seen, this is an area not without its share of legal complexity.

Limited positive discrimination seems to be permitted in the UK and the EU when you have a number of diverse candidates (e.g. gender, race etc) who possess similar academic/vocational qualifications and/or experience. It may be permissible to appoint a suitably qualified woman over a similarly qualified male candidate if the employer can show that this is objectively justified i.e. it is a genuine attempt to promote diversity. That said, attempts to introduce positive discrimination have been subject to legal challenge e.g. Jepson and Dyas-Elliott v The Labour Party [1996] IRLR 116 or outright hostility e.g opposition to the 50/50 recruitment policy for the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, there can be enduring cultural stereotypes centring around the positive discrimination, namely, that the preferred candidate got the job merely because they ticked the necessary boxes (e.g. age, gender, race etc) required to fill a quota. Whether this is true or not, it can make beneficiaries of positive discrimination uneasy that they will be judged not on their ability and skill, but on the basis of their attributes or characteristics.

Blind recruitment?

Blind recruitment is becoming popular with many organisations. Following the publication of the Bridge Group Report in 2016, the UK senior civil service and the NHS committed themselves to this form of recruitment.

A link to the Bridge Group Report can be found below:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/497341/BG_REPORT_FINAL_PUBLISH_TO_RM__1_.pdf

What does it involve?

Basically, the personal data of candidates such as age, educational establishment, disability, gender and ethnicity/nationality/race are not revealed to the recruiter. The theory is that suitable candidates will be selected on the basis of academic/vocational qualifications, experience and skills alone. Theoretically, this should assist more women (and individuals from minority) groups to break through the ‘glass ceiling’ and secure promotion at more, senior management level.

A link to an article about ‘blind recruitment’ can be found below:

https://www.ciphr.com/features/what-is-blind-recruitment/

The Incompetent Male Leader

Why is it that so many incompetent managers are men asks Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic?

Chamorro-Premuzic is a Professor of Business Psychology at University College London and Columbia University, New York.

Well, a major reason could be the reliance on the traditional interview method for recruitment selection. It would seem that men are better at promoting themselves in this forum than women and men tend to emphasise ‘virtues’ which demonstrate their supposed leadership calibre e.g. assertiveness, decisiveness and toughness. Chamorro-Premuzic argues that many of these qualities are vastly overrated by recruiters. Additionally, he asserts that many male leaders and managers suffer from delusions of grandeur and lack of technical expertise. The solution to the problem of the lack of women in senior positions is greater use of psychometric testing.

A link to an article about Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s comments can be found below on the BBC website:

How incompetent men get ahead

Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders? Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s book has a provocative title but what’s the answer?

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to highlight the fact that, in 2019, women are still woefully under-represented in senior positions in many UK based organisations. If we look at statistics supplied by Cranfield School of Business, the overall picture is not encouraging. The phrase the ‘glass ceiling’ (first used in 1978) seems to be as relevant as ever.

Suggested solutions include positive discrimination and more psychometric testing. More inventive solutions can seem attractive, but a word of warning: some years ago Amazon attempted to develop a recruitment tool using artificial intelligence (AI). The road to hell, however, is paved with good intentions: to the dismay of Amazon executives, the AI system was found to be discriminating against female candidates! Back to the drawing board it would seem …

A link to the story about Amazon’s well meaning, but ultimately doomed attempt to attract more female candidates into tech jobs can be found below:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/10/amazon-hiring-ai-gender-bias-recruiting-engine

There ain’t nothin’ goin’ on but the rent …

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

There ain’t nothin’ goin’ on but the rent: so sang Gwen Guthrie in her 1986 R&B hit (older readers may well remember this track). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the UK Government which has just lost a human rights case before the English High Court (Mr Justice Spencer being the presiding judge). A link to a report on the BBC website can be found below:

this on the BBC News App and thought you should see it:

‘Right to rent’ checks breach human rights – High Court

Making landlords check the immigration status of tenants leads to racial discrimination, judge rules.

Immigration Act 2014

When Prime Minister, Theresa May was in her previous job as Home Secretary she steered legislation (the Immigration Act 2014) through the UK Parliament which obliged landlords to check the immigration status of tenants. The purpose of this part of the legislation was to create “a hostile and intimidating environment” for illegal immigrants. The scheme was known as the right to rent.

Landlords who failed to carry out this exercise or failed to do it properly, could be charged with a criminal offence in England. The right to rent scheme had not yet been introduced to Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, but it was the clear intention of the UK Government to do this. It should be recalled that immigration policy remains an area of law reserved to the UK Parliament.

Introduction of the right to rent policy across the remainder of the UK may now be wishful thinking on the part of Mrs May’s Government. In any event, the Scottish Government had already expressed its hostility to the introduction of this policy.

Between R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) (Claimant) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant) and (1) Residential Landlords Association; (2) Equality and Human Rights Commission; and (3) Liberty (intervenors)[2019] EWHC 452

The High Court has determined that the right to rent provisions of the Immigration Act 2016 are a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 (i.e. are incompatible) because they discriminate against individuals on the basis of their ethnicity, nationality and/or race. In terms of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there is a general prohibition on discrimination. There could also be a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention (right to private life and family life). The Government argued that checking the immigration status of prospective tenants was a necessary means of clamping down on illegal migrants – in other words, it could be objectively justified. The High Court did not share this opinion and stated that the compulsory background checks did nothing to combat illegal migration. In point of fact, it encouraged landlords to discriminate against British citizens from ethnic backgrounds (who not surprisingly had foreign names) and non-UK nationals who were in the country quite legally e.g. EU nationals.

The right to rent scheme also breaches Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the public sector equality duty).

Mr Justice Spencer in his ruling stated:

“The measures have a disproportionately discriminatory effect and I would assume and hope that those legislators who voted in favour of the Scheme would be aghast to learn of its discriminatory effect…”

A link to the High Court’s decision can be found below:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/452.html&query=(joint)+AND+(council)+AND+(for)+AND+(the)+AND+(welfare)+AND+(of)+AND+(immigrants)

The consequences of the judgement?

The right to rent scheme has not yet been rolled out across the rest of the UK. The High Court’s decision (though applicable to England only) will certainly give the UK Government pause for thought. A declaration of incompatibility by a UK court is a very serious matter. Although it will not nullify the legislation (that is for Parliament to decide), it represents a significant criticism that parts of a UK Act of Parliament are not human rights compliant.

Admittedly, the High Court has stated that the Government has the right to appeal and it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Conclusion

Human rights are an area of the law which could be labelled the gift that keeps on giving to legal students and practitioners. In 2019, there is scarcely an area of UK public policy which will be immune from international human rights principles. The UK Government may choose to appeal, but if in the longer term, the decision of the High Court is upheld by the English Court of Appeal (and possibly by the UK Supreme Court), it will be up to the UK Parliament to decide whether to amend the Immigration Act 2016 so that it is compatible with this country’s human rights obligations.

As stated in previously Blogs, the consequences of declaring UK parliamentary legislation incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights can be fully appreciated if we refer to the Supreme Court’s decision in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (CNK Alliance Ltd intervening) [2014] UKSC 38:

“An essential element of the structure of the Human Rights Act 1998 is the call which Parliament has made on the courts to review the legislation which it passes in order to tell it whether the provisions contained in that legislation comply with the Convention. By responding to that call and sending the message to Parliament that a particular provision is incompatible with the Convention, the courts do not usurp the role of Parliament, much less offend the separation of powers. A declaration of incompatibility is merely an expression of the court’s conclusion as to whether, as enacted, a particular item of legislation cannot be considered compatible with a Convention right. In other words, the courts say to Parliament, ‘This particular piece of legislation is incompatible, now it is for you to decide what to do about it.’ And under the scheme of the Human Rights Act 1998 it is open to Parliament to decide to do nothing.”

Jumping the gun?

In the first semester of this academic year, I was speaking to a group of students about disability discrimination in terms of the Equality Act 2010. Disability is a protected characteristic (Sections 4 and 6 of the Act).

We were discussing, in particular, an employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments to a post in order to assist a disabled person to continue carrying out their duties. The employer is under a duty in terms of Section 20 of the Act to make reasonable adjustments to a disabled person’s post. A failure to comply with this duty would breach Section 21 of the Act.

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Statutory Code of Practice on Employment, an example of a reasonable adjustment made by an employer to assist a disabled person could amount to the following:

An employer has a policy that designated car parking spaces are only offered to senior managers. A worker who is not a manager, but has a mobility impairment and needs to park very close to the office, is given a designated car parking space. This is likely to be a reasonable adjustment to the employer’s car parking policy.

What is reasonable when making adjustments?

This will be a key issue when determining whether to implement the requested adjustment. Each case will turn on its own facts and what is reasonable in one situation may be entirely unreasonable in different context. We can look at two contrasting cases to get a better understanding of this issue:

Cordell v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2011] UKEAT 0016_11_0510 (5 October 2011) , the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the adjustments requested by a senior diplomat were not reasonable in the sense that they would represent approximately five times the cost her annual salary.

Conversely, in Donnelly v Environment Agency [2013] UKEAT/0914/13 (18 October 2013), the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that the refusal by the employer to consider providing the employee with a designated parking space was a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Sharpshooting

So, returning to the discussion with my students, I related a story to them that had stuck in my memory about a disability claim. The story was reported in the UK national media in 2015 and concerned a Police marksman or sniper who had served in an armed response team with the Sussex and Surrey Force.

Please see the link to the story on website of the Mail Online:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3255912/Deaf-police-marksman-moved-job-couldn-t-hear-difference-shoot-don-t-shoot-wins-disability-discrimination-payout.html

The Police officer in question, Bruce Shields, had a developed a problem with his hearing. This was an issue which rightly concerned his superior officers. There were legitimate questions about his ability to carry out his job – especially so given the potentially serious situations which he often found himself in when carrying out his duties. Hearing loss is, of course, a disability in terms of the Equality Act 2010.

PC Shields took his employer to an Employment Tribunal alleging disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. He won his case, which may seem surprising given that you would have thought that his employer had strong grounds for removing him from these types of duties on health and safety grounds. This could be potentially an objective justification for his removal from firearms duties.

That said, however, the Tribunal decided in favour of PC Shields because his employer failed to send him for the appropriate medical test which would have established his suitability for these types of duties. No pun intended, but perhaps the employer “jumped the gun” by acting too hastily before an objective medical assessment was carried out.

Conclusion

The experience of Bruce Shields shows the importance of the employer carrying out independent medical tests before removing a disabled person from a post. Perhaps, if the employer had acted differently and followed procedures, there may have been a different outcome i.e. a more favourable one for the employer.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?

Photo taken from The Guardian, Sunday 17 February 2019. Available at:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/17/no-blacks-graffiti-painted-on-door-of-10-year-olds-salford-home

In a previous blog (Hurt feelings), I discussed the psychological and emotional damage of discrimination suffered by the victim.

A story that has been making headlines this week has been the racist graffiti that was daubed on the front door of a property in Salford, Greater Manchester.

To its great credit, The Guardian published the pictures of the graffiti on its front page in order to expose the true extent of racism in British society in 2019.

A 10 year old boy, David Yamba has spoken about how the offensive graffiti on the front door of his home has traumatised him:

‘Racist graffiti left me terrified’

Ten-year-old David Yamba’s new home was vandalised with the words “No Blacks” painted on the front door.