Archive for the ‘Discrimination’ Category

Discrimination and the Law

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Without going into the merits of ability or legal rights and rendering unequal treatment to a person is known as discrimination. In the US, state and federal laws forbid discrimination in rates of payment, employment, promotion rights, opportunities in education, civil rights and facility usage on the basis of nationality, race, colour, creed, sex, age and sexual orientation. Protesting against discrimination or seeking enforcement of rights of equal treatment is provided in various state and federal laws.

Not all discrimination is illegal. There is legal discrimination too. When a person is given different treatment based on the membership of their class it is an illegal discrimination because being part of a race, national origin or age, colour, family status, or gender cannot be controlled or changed by an individual.

Whereas an individual can control his or her behaviour in respect of a credit record, being a law-abiding tenant, accumulating wealth or having a secure job. A discrimination based on the above is perfectly legal.

The law on discrimination is very complex to understand because there is always exceptions and variations of being a group, whereas the rules are applicable in general context. If a person falls sick due to excessive smoking, which leads to a disability, then that person cannot fight against disability discrimination. Similarly certain characteristic of a group can be changed – for example a change in family status or a change of religion.

It is very difficult to prove illegal discrimination. Treatment shown to one person should be proved as different from the general treatment given for the same cause

Many landlords come out with excuses for the special or not so special treatment to get away from illegal discrimination. If the new owner is of different color from the existing tenant and the landlord is showing payment history as cause for eviction, then it is very difficult to prove illegal discrimination even though the cause shown is different from the hidden cause for the eviction.

Similarly according to California’s fair housing laws, a tenant cannot be discriminated simply because he or she is availing child support or public assistance.

A disabled person cannot be discriminated against by not providing ramps, handrails, or illuminated doorbells etc. This is a case of clear discrimination based on the disability and the law of the land is very much in favour of the disabled community. These provisions should be made available either by the landlord or if not already available, the tenant should be permitted to include these provisions at their own cost.

By: Anastasia Phocas

About the Author:

Anastasia Phocas is a proud contributing author. Find more articles here. For more info visit Lawsuit Resource [http://lawsuitresource.info] or Discrimination [http://lawsuitresource.info/discrimination-lawsuit.php]

Website content

Employment Law – Discrimination – Disability Discrimination – Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments

Monday, September 14th, 2009


The recent case of McHugh v NCH Scotland [2006], concerned an allegation of disability discrimination. The employee commenced employment as a project manager for the employer, a children’s charity, in 1997. In 2001, she was certified unfit to work on the grounds of depression.

In August, the employee’s GP told the employer’s occupational health adviser that the employee continued to suffer from moderately to severe depression but would be able to return to work when her mood had sufficiently recovered. In December, the employer met with the employee in order to discuss the possibility of a staged return to work. The employee enquired as to whether the staged return to work would be possible to occur in the training section of the organisation. Unfortunately she was informed that there were no vacancies.

On the 1st of February 2002, the employee requested early retirement on the grounds of ill health. The employer told the employee that her application had not been submitted for approval as it had not been supported by the occupational health adviser, who on the basis of medical information from her GP, did not consider her to be permanently incapacitated as a result of her illness.

At a meeting in May, the employee and employer agreed to seek direction from a specialist medical report. The employer stated that it would welcome the employee back to work through a managed programme, which would require an indication of a return date as outlined by the results of a consultation with her GP.

In June, the employer was advised that the employee had instructed a solicitor and that it should not communicate directly with her.

The specialist report indicated that it was possible that the employee would return to health over a period of six to twelve months, but that it was unlikely she would be able to return to work in her previous capacity and that early retirement should be considered.

Based on that report, the occupational health adviser indicated to the employer that he did not consider the employee permanently incapacitated, as there was a possibility that her health could improve. In April 2003, at the request of the employee, the employer submitted a further application for early retirement to the occupational health adviser. The occupational health adviser refused to support the application.

A further independent medical assessment was then carried out. However, it also refused to support an application for early retirement. In May 2004, the employee resigned with notice.

Subsequently the occupational health adviser stated that he was unable to certify that the employee fulfilled the conditions for early retirement and that it would not be unreasonable to terminate her employment on the ground of capability. As a result, the employee brought proceedings before the employment tribunal claiming unlawful disability discrimination.

The tribunal allowed the claim on the grounds that the employer had failed to consider making reasonable adjustments in the form of increased physical support. The employer appealed against the decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (“EAT”). The employer submitted that the tribunal had erred in failing to consider justification for the breach of duty pursuant to s.5(4) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (“the Act”). It argued that the tribunal ought to have addressed whether the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments, rather than whether it had failed to consider making reasonable adjustments.

Furthermore, it was submitted that the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not triggered during the time when the employee was off work as there was no indication of a return date.

The appeal was allowed for the following reasons:

- it was common ground that there had been no finding on justification. It was held that was a matter of substance, as the employer had contended that the failure by the employee to consider (in conjunction with the employer) any further steps after she had insisted that all communication was to go through her solicitor constituted justification for any failure to comply with the duty. That was deemed both material to the circumstances of the case and substantial pursuant to s.5(4) of the Act. It had been an error by the tribunal to make no finding on justification, which was an employer’s defence to a finding of breach of duty. The finding of unlawful discrimination therefore had to be set aside.

- the duty was to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal had recognised that the principal issue in the instant case was the failure of the employer ‘to consider’ reasonable adjustments. It found that it had so failed, and there that the judgment was inconsistent with previous authority and so could not stand.

Employment Law – New Legislation – Age Discrimination and Maternity

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009


On 9th March 2006, the government in the UK published the final draft of one of the most important pieces of employment legislation since the 1970s. This legislation came into force on the 1st October 2006.

The legislation applies to employees of all ages, at any point during the employment relationship (from recruitment to retirement) and provides for the following:

Gender Employment Discrimination – Dealing With It By The Law

Sunday, December 21st, 2008


When does the concern arise?

In case of women in workplace, gender employment discrimination could turn to be a serious concern. The law covers various issues against discrimination within the workplace. This includes equality of pay, pregnancy rights and sexual harassment. This piece of information would explore several facets concerned with gender employment discrimination speaking about the various rights women in workplace have these days.

Equal Pay Act 1963

The most primitive bias related to gender employment discrimination got seriously prohibited in 1963; The Equal Pay Act of 1963. The act stresses that no matter whether it is a man or a woman, they should be ensured to get paid equally for equal work when within the same organization. However jobs need not be identical though must be significantly equal. Here it is evident that it is all about the substance in relation to the job and never the title the job holds which determines if job is substantially the same. Being substantially equal also means that they are equal in performance, skill including experience, education and training, ability, effort, responsibility, the total amount of physical stab required to have the job done or even the degree of liability required. The entire environment should too be equal. Conditions within the workplace should also be the same, which covers the corporal surroundings such as different hazards and the temperature as well. This law which protects equality of pay for work alike pertains only to jobs within the same enterprise.

Sexual harassment

Sexual harassment is a further variant in gender employment discrimination which is also proscribed by law. It must be realized and considered that even though women are most commonly affected by such discrimination, men too have been victims of the same. Sexual harassment encompasses within itself different issues like request for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances, non-verbal or verbal or even any physical behavior which is sexual in nature as distinct by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sexual harassment could happen in a number of circumstances uninvited! It sometimes happens that the facing victim is not an associate of the differing sex. Furthermore, the harasser in question need not be any immediate or dotted line supervisor, nor is it required that the sexual harassing act should be direct or even influences loss of pay. It could come up concerning and defining the harasser as suggested by the victim.

Pregnancy Discrimination

Pregnancy discrimination is another deviation within gender employment discrimination. Any employer should not make refusals to take on a woman for her pregnancy or any pregnancy related stipulations. If the job cannot be performed by a pregnant employee, due to her pregnancy, the employer should treat her just like any other member who is momentarily disabled. If the organization allows temporarily disabled people to modify their jobs or carry out different assignments, it must allow the similar modifications for the employee who is pregnant. In a case where the pregnant woman is absent from work following pregnancy concerned reasons, then the employer may not entail that she proceeds with her leave till the delivery of the kid. Lastly, the company should hold open an employment for any absence associated with pregnancy for same duration of time employment is held for employees when they are unwell or on medical leave.

By: Abhishek Agarwal

About the Author:
Abhishek is a Career Counselor and he has got some great Career Planning Secrets up his sleeves! Download his FREE 71 Pages Ebook, “Career Planning Made Easy!” from his website http://www.Career-Guru.com/769/index.htm. Only limited Free Copies available.



Kansieo.com

Employment Law: Racial Discrimination – Unfavourable Treatment

Friday, November 14th, 2008


The case of Webster v Brunel University [2004], was recently decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’). The applicant, Webster, was employed by Brunel University as a helpdesk officer providing Information Technology support to the administrative staff of the respondent, Brunel University. The applicant brought proceedings in the employment tribunal against the respondent, claiming racial discrimination.

The tribunal dismissed her complaints. The applicant appealed in respect of the dismissal of one of her complaints, namely that whilst she was giving advice over the telephone she heard laughter in the background and the word ‘Paki’ was mentioned. She claimed racial discrimination and contended that Brunel University was vicariously liable.

Section 54A (1) of the Race Relations Act provides:

‘This section applies where a complaint is presented under s 54 and the complaint is that the respondent (a) has committed an act of discrimination, on grounds of race … which is unlawful (2) Where, on the hearing of the complaint, the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could, apart from this section, conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the respondent (a) has committed such an act of discrimination against the complainant the tribunal shall uphold the complaint unless the respondent proves that he did not commit that act’.

The applicant claimed the following:

Once the tribunal had found that the word ‘Paki’ was used, it had erred in leaving the onus on the applicant, to establish that there had been unfavourable treatment on grounds of race;

Further, the tribunal having left the onus on the applicant to establish unfavourable treatment and by looking at all the facts had simply decided that she had not proved her case;

That the tribunal should at least have considered transferring the onus of proof to the respondent;

That the tribunal ought to have concluded that there could have been discriminatory treatment by Brunel University because the alleged treatment could have been by an employee of the University. Once it concluded discriminatory treatment the tribunal should have transferred the onus from the applicant to the respondent.

The University contended that before the onus of proof could transfer to the respondent:

It was necessary for the applicant to establish that there was unfavourable treatment by the respondent; and
Only then could inferences be drawn that that treatment was discriminatory on grounds of sex or race.
The EAT allowed the appeal.
The EAT ruled that the onus of proof transferred to the respondent once the applicant had established a prima facie case that there had been a discriminatory act by the respondent.

The EAT held that in future tribunals should apply the same prima facie test as applied to all questions relating to race and sex discrimination. In particular, where the treatment complained of by an applicant, amounted to sexual or racial discrimination and, was carried out by an employee of the respondent.

The Tribunals should in future direct themselves that once the facts had been found on the balance of probabilities, from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent had committed such an act, then the tribunal would uphold the complaint unless the respondent proved that it had not committed the act or, that the respondent was not vicariously liable for the employee that had committed the act.

The case was remitted to a fresh tribunal to consider:

Whether there was a prima facie case of unfavourable treatment by the respondent by someone for whom the respondent was vicariously liable; and
If so, upon the burden of proof passing from the applicant to the respondent, whether the respondent could establish that there was no unfavourable treatment, significantly influenced by race, of the applicant, by one of its employees.

If you require further information contact us.

Email: enquiries@rtcoopers.com

Employment Law – Unfair Dismissal – Race Discrimination – Foreign Employer

Saturday, November 8th, 2008


A City banker launched a race discrimination claim against Dresdner Kleinwort (“DrK”). He alleged that he was treated less favourably whilst at work, and was eventually made redundant because he was neither German nor a German speaker.

The unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim could be worth close to

Discrimination and Texas Law

Monday, August 4th, 2008


There are two forms of illegal discrimination under Texas employment law. One is a refusal to hire or promote a person because of certain protected characteristics. The other is wrongful termination, or firing an employee because of those same characteristics. In Texas, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of his or her sex, race, age, religion, national origin or any disability he or she may have. Although this state’s law does not specifically list sexual orientation as an illegal reason to fire or refuse to hire someone, it is illegal for employers to inquire about an applicant’s sexual orientation or family life.

Some characteristics are not protected. For example, it is legal for an employer to refuse to hire anyone with a criminal record, and to fire a current employee if he or she turns out to have such a record. But because merely being accused of a crime does not make a person guilty, it is illegal for an employer to ask about any arrests or accusations during a job interview. Employers may only inquire about convictions. Employers are also allowed to ask about an applicant’s legal status as it relates to work, and about any accommodations the employee may need. If the employee cannot perform the job he or she is applying for without reasonable accommodations, it is not considered discrimination if he or she is turned down for the job.

In Texas, employees are assumed to be “at will.” This means that, under typical circumstances, employees can leave a job at any time for any reason. Conversely, employers can let an employee go at any time for any reason that does not fall under illegal discrimination.

The law recognizes only two exceptions to at will employment. They are both related to the contract an employee and his or her new employer may sign. The contract may specify that the employment will last a set amount of time, or that the employee can only be let go under certain specific circumstances. If such a contract is signed, then the employer is obligated to keep the employee until the time is up or the employee violates the contract, and the employee is obligated to continue working at that job until the contract expires. Texas law requires that the wording of this contract be very specific. It is not enough for employers to outline job requirements, then fire employees who do not meet these requirements. The contract must explicitly state that an employee’s job will be terminated under specific conditions, then describe those conditions.

By: Joseph Devine

About the Author:
If you would like more information about Texas employment laws and illegal discrimination, contact Austin employment lawyers Melton & Kumler

Joseph Devine



Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress

Understanding Employment Discrimination Law

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008


Laws protect people in employment against discrimination based on race, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and many other areas. The major piece of legislation that covers disability discrimination is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Part of the purpose of the act is to define who is protected by law and what constitutes illegal discrimination. Like most employment discrimination laws the hardest part of the process in determining if you have been affected is understanding the definitions. The definition of an individual with a disability, under the law, is one who has a physical and or a mental impairment that significantly limits one or more of life’s major activities. Major life activities have been defined as those things an average person can do without a great deal of difficulty for example breathing, seeing, hearing, walking, working and the like.

Employment discrimination laws cover the hiring, promotion and firing processes. This which means, a well-qualified applicant cannot be denied fair consideration for employment. Current employees cannot be denied promotion or terminated on the grounds of their disability. Training, benefits, and employee compensation cannot be waived or in any way altered due to a disability. If an employee or applicant makes a claim of discrimination, they must first be a “qualified individual with a disability”, which means if the person is disabled, they must be able to perform the job or task before they can claim they are being discriminated physically.

Under the law the definition of a qualified person with a disability, is someone who first and foremost that has the necessary skills, education or job experience and who can perform the work in question. As well as being able to perform the job you must be able to do so with or without reasonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation can include making work places accessible for people with disabilities, job restructuring, a modified work timetable, extra unpaid leave, modifying equipment or having qualified readers on hand.

An employer complying with employment discrimination law is not required to lower normal production standards to make an accommodation, nor is he expected to provide personal items like eyeglasses or hearing aids. Employers are only required to provide reasonable accommodation and this gives employers an exemption or what could be seen as a loophole in the legislation. The requirement to make reasonable accommodations for a qualified candidate also means they are not obligated to do so if it would cause undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. In effect, undue hardship means anything that causes significant difficulty or expense when compared with the size of the business, the financial status and the businesses operation.

You, like me, may feel that you have been the victim of discrimination. Before making a final decision on whether or not to file a complaint, it is important to check all the existing statutes, both federal and state, related to this law as well as case law. This will ensure you chances of success.

By: Gary T Talbot

About the Author:
You need more information on and a copy of the FREE report Employment Discrimination: Are You A Victim Of Discrimination employment discrimination [http://www.youremploymentguide.net/employment_discrimination]? So head over to YourEmploymentGuide.net [http://www.youremploymentguide.net%20]



discrimination law

Racial Discrimination And The Law Behind It

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008


Still in our times, the battle against racial discrimination is yet far from being settled. This is very much evident on the large number of job discrimination cases which were filed in courts across the United States and most especially in the state of California. Typically, equal employment rights and opportunities should be handed down to everyone regardless of his race or color and his association to a certain ethnic group.

To provide protection in the workforce from employment discrimination on the basis of their race and color, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been used as a refuge against unruly employers. This law also safeguards the employees as well as the applicants regarding hiring, promotions, compensations, privileges, terminations and other factors which may affect an individual’s performance in his or her work. Moreover, this law results to the prohibition of labor assessments and resolutions about a person’s capabilities on the sole basis of his acquaintance to a certain racial community. To add, this also asserts that it is unlawful for any company or employer to implement a variety of job rulings and regulations which mainly intends to discriminate minorities. Furthermore, this statute covers the prohibition of racial jokes in the workplaces such as ethnic slurs, offensive and derogatory remarks and other verbal and physical acts which may constitute to an illegal harassment if ever the actions intimidates an individual and subsequently affects his work performance.

On the other hand, classifying or segregating workers on the basis of their race or color is also an unlawful act as prescribe by the said law. This means that any employer who will be proven to physically isolate his employee from his co-workers or from the customer’s sight or contact shall be held accountable for violating this statute. Besides, the law also forbids the employers to assign their minority workers to marginal job coursework or workplace which hinders them of obtaining professional growth. This also covers the rights of the applicants of being fairly considered by the employers or an employment agency in a job post regardless of his race or color.

Racial discrimination cases rather should be dealt with accordingly. And in doing this, the victims may seek legal counsel assistance to know more about one’s rights and what legal actions one may pursue in order to acquire justice. Notwithstanding the intricate process of filing a lawsuit may be, an eligible employment lawyer taking charge in one’s pursuance of the case will undoubtedly bring good outcomes in their cases. Thus, the discriminated employee may demand for just compensation as stated in their severance package.

Finally, racial discrimination incidents in the workplace can still be lessened, if not totally eradicated, if only people would cease from condemning other individuals from a different race. Above and beyond, the ability of a person to exceed in his work does not necessarily rely on his color but rather in his skills and attitude in performing his assigned duties.

By: Rainier Policarpio

About the Author:
“Our Professional Los Angeles Lawyers specialize in all fields of Personal Injury, Employment



Caffeinated Content

Discrimination – The Law Offers More Protection Than You Think

Friday, April 11th, 2008


The highest court in New Jersey has compared discrimination in our society to a cancer which must be aggressively cut out and prevented from spreading. One way New Jersey has dealt with the issue of discrimination is through the education of our youth in our public schools in the hopes that prejudice learned at home is eliminated through the cultural enlightenment of our impressionable children.

Another effective way New Jersey has dealt with discrimination is through the implementation and enforcement of one of the most powerful anti-discrimination laws in the nation, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Under this New Jersey law, it is unlawful for any employer, school, hospital, business, governmental agency, financial institution, landlord, seller of real estate, and place of public accommodation (hotel, motel, etc) to discriminate against any person on the basis of numerous protected classifications such as a person’s gender, race, country of origin, ethnic background, religion, marital status, age, physical or mental handicap, genetic, cellular or blood type and pregnancy.

New Jersey law protects all persons fitting within any protected classification from being terminated from or deprived of employment or a benefit or service because of discrimination. Additionally, the law prohibits discrimination as motivation for changing the terms or conditions of a person’s employment or of any service, benefit or right to which an employee is entitled.. One of the key provisions of the law enables everyone to be able to afford a lawyer to help them in discrimination claims as the Law Against Discrimination forces the company or person guilty of discrimination to pay the victim’s legal fees and expenses.

Some examples of widespread unlawful discrimination in the workplace can be seen in cases our law firm has handled. In one case, a young woman of Hispanic ethnicity was fired merely because she was pregnant. Although our client was physically able to perform all of the tasks required of her job and even had a letter from her doctor attesting to this fact, her company nevertheless fired her simply because of her pregnancy. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination clearly states that such action is illegal, therefore, the employer made an unwise decision in firing our client because the company will now have to pay many tens of thousands of dollars in litigation expenses to defend and ultimately settle our client’s claims.

In another case, our female clients were subjected to unwelcome touching and sexually explicit verbal comments by their male employer. On one occasion, the male employer even placed a nude photograph of himself on the office bulletin board so that his entire staff, all women, would have to see it while they worked. On another occasion, our client was humiliated when the male employer in question placed a small Christmas tree upon her desk, and, instead of holiday ornaments, the boss hung condoms on the tree. The boss continued to commit similar degrading and embarrassing acts upon his female staff on an almost a daily basis for several years until finally the female office workers decided they had enough and retained our law firm to help them. In the end, it was the boss who was humiliated as he and his insurance company were forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to compensate the women he had victimized for his own gratification.

In another example showing the extent to which people holding positions of authority will go to in order to victimize those people they mistakenly believe are powerless to defend themselves, a company’s president threatened to report our client, an illegal immigrant from a South American country, to the INS, unless she had sex with him after the other employees went home for the evening. This exploitation continued for months until our client became informed of her rights, retained our law firm’s services and we filed a lawsuit under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. During the litigation, it became clear that the boss exploited other female employees in the past, and, that the company failed to provide appropriate training and education to its managers and supervisors concerning unlawful discrimination in the workplace. As a result of the lawsuit, the boss who exploited our client was fired from his job, and, his company was forced to pay a large amount of compensation to our client.

Although there are many cases similar to the above examples, the sad fact remains that unlawful discrimination, especially in the workplace, is a daily occurrence. The common thread in the examples given above is that when some people believe they have authority over others by virtue of their high position with a company, these people believe they have the right to exploit or discriminate against their employees who do not possess the same authority within the company. The Law Against Discrimination, however, is the great equalizer! When victims of unlawful discrimination become educated about the law and understand that they no longer have to put up with discriminatory practices against them at work, they gain the ability to change things for the betterment of themselves and for all similarly victimized employees, and, in the process, obtain compensation for their damages. As the old saying goes, “Information is power.” It is clear that everyone in New Jersey who works hard just to feed, cloth and house their families needs to understand that when it comes to fighting discrimination, they are empowered with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, legal protection too strong for any exploitive bigot to ever defeat.

If you believe that you or a loved one have been the victim of unlawful discrimination, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney to discuss the situation and learn more about your rights and available remedies, especially since no article can serve as a substitute for the advice an experienced attorney can provide based on the merits and circumstances of an individual case. The bottom line: with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination as a powerful ally, no one should ever put up with discrimination in the workplace.

By: David Sternlieb

About the Author:
David Sternlieb, a partner in the law firm of Shapiro & Sternlieb located in Freehold and Manalapan, is a trial lawyer who handles cases involving unlawful discrimination in the workplace.



Caffeinated Content




This website contains legal information, and not legal advice. It's content refers only to the law of the United States of America. Law firm web design