There are two basic forms of
discrimination.
Direct discrimination is when an
employee or prospective employee is less
favourably treated because of their race
or sex.
This tends to be obvious discrimination,
for example, a female candidate with the
best qualifications and experience does
not get an interview.
Or, if she is already in a job, she is
ignored for promotion, the job going to
a less qualified male worker.
An employer cannot argue that it was not
their intention to discriminate, the law
only considers the end effect.
In-direct discrimination is a more
complicated form of discrimination.
An Employment Tribunal will look at 3
factors.
-
The amount of
people from a racial group or of one
sex that can meet the job criteria
is considerably smaller than the
rest of the population.
-
The criteria
cannot actually be justified by the
employer as a real requirement of
the job. So a candidate who cannot
meet the criteria could still do the
job as well as anyone else.
-
Because the
person cannot comply with these
criteria they have actually suffered
in some way because of it. This
seems obvious, but a person cannot
complain unless they have lost out
in some way.
With Indirect
Discrimination an employer can argue
that there may be discrimination, but
that it is actually required for the
job.
This does not happen
very often, but circumstances where it
might occur are, for example, actors who
are needed to play certain characters
for authenticity. The same can be true
for restaurants, for example an Indian
restaurant will want Indian staff rather
than white staff.
The Interactive
Law Group