How Successful is the Law Relating to Discrimination in Creating Equality at Work

Introduction

      In a General Assembly of the United Nations (UN), the Member States adopted the Resolution of The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on 21 December 1965 and avowed their support and compliance with one of the purposes of the UN which is ‘to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion’[1] They declared that all human beings are equal and are entitled to equal protection of the law.[2] The Resolution reiterated the adoption of the Convention concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation adopted by the International Labour Organisation in 1958.[3] It further declared the existence of economic, social and cultural rights, more particularly the right to work, freedom to choose employment, right to just and beneficial work conditions, guarantee against unemployment, right to equal pay for equal work and the right to fair and equitable remuneration.[4]

      According to the International Council for Human Rights, there are three basic principles that enforce protection to human rights. These are non discrimination, equality and equal protection of the law.[5]

      Discrimination is defined as a ‘treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners”[6] (Heritage Dictionary, 2004). Clearly, the term requires some overt action with a consequent outcome or effect.

      The UN Human Rights Committee has drawn an interpretation from different treatises specifically related to their pertinent functional areas, as to what constitutes “discrimination” considering that there appears to be an absence of a generic definition.[7] It defined “discrimination” as, Any distinction, exclusion, restriction of preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.[8]

       Specific treatises and conventions address the pertinent areas of their fields. The following are cited, as follows:

       The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Article 1 (1) provides,

In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[9]

      The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Article 1 thereof provides,

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “discrimination against women” shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.[10]

      On the other hand, the 1958 Discrimination (Employment & Occupation) Convention, Art 1(a) thereof provides a definition of the term “discrimination” as, ‘Any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation.’[11]

       The United Kingdom (UK) became a signatory to the 1958 European Convention on Human Rights. By virtue thereof, it acceded to the rights protected as set out in the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights was created as an international court based in Strasbourg, France, to enforce and interpret the Convention. In 1998, the Human Rights Act (HRA) came into force.[12] This legislation contains all the rights set forth in the Convention of 1958. However, the HRA only was enforceable against public authorities and bodies or private entities performing public functions.[13]

      There is quite a number of specific legislation that addresses equality and prohibits discrimination. These laws provide machinery for redress and prosecution in cases of violation.  At present, there are laws which deal with discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and disability that are manifest in a number of areas including employment, education, housing and availability of goods and services.[14] This shall be discussed lengthily in the subsequent section.

      It is important however to stress the importance of anti-discrimination laws. According to E. Ellis, the right to equality of opportunity regardless of gender is fundamental in any civilized society.  In the absence of it, human dignity is sacrificed, talents and abilities are not fully tapped therefore, the community at-large suffers loss of valuable resources.[15]

      Ellis further explains that the European integration is necessary to broaden the geographical scope of business and enterprise. The Member States of the European Union are now known  as European Community (EC). UK became a member of the community on 01 January 1973, together with Ireland and Denmark.[16] As a signatory to the Treaty of European Unity (TEU), UK binds herself to Article 7 thereof which deprives a Member of the right to vote in cases of clear and serious breach of the fundamental rights stated in its Charter and equality is one of those. Moreover, several treaties were signed thereafter with other Members for joint cooperation and mutual support in other areas of business which significantly developed the protection of fundamental human rights as linkages to other members and as an indispensable prerequisite to European Union’s legitimacy.[17]

An Overview to Laws against Discrimination 

      This Section will present a general summary of the relevant domestic legislation and salient provisions relating to the prohibition against discrimination.

1. Race Discrimination

      The pertinent legislation which covers racial discrimination encompassing fields of employment, housing, the provisions of goods, and services, and advertising is the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA). This was amended in 2001 by Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 (RRA 2000) to enlarge its coverage with the inclusion of the public authorities. RRA defines the racial grounds as grounds of color, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.[18]

       The law defines four types of discrimination namely, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimization and harassment.[19]Direct discrimination transpires when a person treats another less favourably based on racial grounds than he would treat another.[20] Indirect discrimination on the other hand is, when a racial group is at a disadvantage in its ability to comply with a specific criterion or practice.[21] Victimisation is similar to indirect discrimination but the law establishes motives such as when one brought proceedings against the discriminator. He then treats the complaint less favourably. Harassment is defined by law as unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins.[22]

1. Sex Discrimination

      The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) is applicable to men and women. It prohibits sex discrimination at the workplace or employment, among others. It also makes unlawful to discriminate against a person on grounds of marital status. It classified different forms of sexual discrimination into direct and indirect. Direct sex discrimination occurs where a person is or would be treated less favourably than another on the grounds of his or her sex. Implementing the provisions of the European Directive 97/80 EC in October 2001, indirect sex discrimination occurs,

‘where an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice equally to women and men but the provision, criterion or practice which: is such that it puts or would put one sex at a particular disadvantage when compared with the other sex; and puts the individual at that disadvantage; and the employer cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’[23]

   B-1    Equal Pay Act 1970

      Coming into force with SDA 1975 is Equal Pay Act 1970 (EqPA 1970). Collectively, they are known as “sex discrimination legislation.” This deals with the prohibition of discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, specifically pay and qualification for membership in pension schemes.[24]This law includes discrimination on grounds of pregnancy or maternity.[25]

           B-2      Protection from Harassment Act 1977

      This law (PHA) was passed to protect individuals from harassment and similar conduct, i.e. stalking or a serious sexual harassment. The law does not define harassment but it clarifies the conduct constituting the offence as alarming a person or causing distress as to instill a fear of violence against them. The conduct must occur at least on two occasions. The court may grants relief ranging from award of damages, imprisonment term of six months maximum and/or fine, and injunction.[26]

          B-3    Sexual Orientation Discrimination

      Those known and believed to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual suffer sexual orientation discrimination. Up until December 2003, a lesbian, gay or bisexual worker was not protected against this discrimination. With the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (EESOR), sexual orientation is prohibited from being discriminated against in employment and vocational training.

      Sexual orientation is defined as meaning a ‘sexual orientation toward persons of the same sex, persons of the opposite sex or persons of the same sex and the opposite sex’.

        B-4      Transgender Discrimination and Gender Reassignment

        Protection for employment discrimination is given to those who have undergone, plan to undergo

or are undergoing gender reassignment under the SDA which was amended 1999. Gender reassignment is defined as ‘a process undertaken under medical supervision for the purpose of re-assigning a person’s sex by changing physiological or other characteristics of sex, and includes any part of that process.’[27]

      Under the SDA, before the entitlement to the status of a woman, a transsexual has to be declared by the tribunal and the employer in a judgment as to when the transsexual becomes a woman thereby entitled to use the facilities of women.[28]  A Certificate is thereby issued.

      The law enumerates certain exceptions, one of which is a situation whereby a transsexual may denied a job when it involves lawful intimate physical searches. In fact the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruled this provision does not exclude transsexuals serving as police constabulary considering that intimate physical searches are done by doctors.[29]

     The Gender Recognition 2004 strengthened the protection of transsexuals and eliminated these exceptions once a Gender Recognition Certificate is issued.

1. Disability Discrimination

      Disabled person or one who has had disability is protected against employment discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The law defines a disabled person as anyone with  a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect upon their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’.Moreover, it gives the employer the duty to adjust working arrangements or workplace to accommodate the disabled person. With the amendment in 2005, the progressive conditions already constitute disability as against diagnosis.[30]

1. Religion/belief Discrimination

     The Employment Equality (Religion or belief) Regulations 2003 provides for prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in the employment field. The law was amended to extend its coverage to discrimination in occupational pension schemes. The law further defines discrimination if one ‘discriminates against another on grounds of belief or religion by treating another less favourably or when one applies to another a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would equally apply to persons not of the same religion or belief.’[31]

1. Age Discrimination

      The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 which came into force in October 2003 in compliance with the adoption of an EC Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC), provides for the protection against age discrimination in employment for people of all ages. This means that when making decisions about promotions or hiring, the employer should not take age into account, unless this can be justified or if it falls under an exception such as being a genuine occupational requirement for the position.[32] 

Governmental and the Legal System’s Enforcement and Implementation: 

An Assessment of Effectiveness 

      Theoretically, the legal structures and framework were set in place with the passage of antidiscrimination legislation. However, the widespread enforcement of these Acts was slow. For instance, the RRA 1975 has already been in force when the case of Stephen Lawrence transpired in 1993. Lawrence, a black, was murdered and his case was later on dismissed on grounds of lack of evidence. There was lack of evidence because the police investigation failed—its failure due to institutionalized racism. In 1999, the results of the Lawrence Inquiry were released.

      After more than six years, there were a number of cases under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000). The main concerns were police officers who have been granted the power under the Amendment, to bring claims against fellow officers and the refugees, migrants and asylum seekers.  Thus in the case of Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2004] UKEAT 0445_02_1601 (16 January 2004),[33] the applicant, a black police officer, complained about his employer who failed and refused to act on and investigate his 47 complaints during the course of his appointment. The Employment Tribunal instead addressed all of the complaints with findings against the applicant. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that there was indeed a case of victimization. The Tribunal explained that the employer’s refusal to act on the complaints constituted one continuing act of discrimination. The Tribunal reiterated its ruling in the case of Law Society v Bahl [2003] IRLR 640[34] when it established the following principles on direct discrimination:

‘First, the onus lies on the claimant to establish discrimination in accordance with the normal standard of proof.

Second, the discrimination need not be conscious; sometimes a person may discriminate on these grounds as a result of inbuilt and unrecognised prejudice of which he or she is unaware.

Third, the discriminatory reason for the conduct need not be the sole or even the principal reason for the discrimination; it is enough that it is a contributing cause in the sense of a ‘significant influence.'[35] see Lord Nicholls in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 527 at 576.

Fourth, in determining whether there has been direct discrimination, it is necessary in all save the most obvious cases for the tribunal to discover what was in the mind of the alleged discriminator. Since there will generally be no direct evidence on this point, the tribunal will have to make appropriate inferences.”

      The Tribunal ruled further that the 47 complaints should be construed as a continuing regime whereby the applicant complained about individual incidents. This regime did not advance the career of the applicant and this can be considered as being treated less favourably.

      In another case, British Medical Association v Chaudhary [2004] UKEAT 1351_01_2403 (24 March 2004),[36] Chaudhary, an Indian, filed an appeal from the decision of Manchester Employment Tribunal. According to him he was racially discriminated against by his professional association and trade union. The British Medical Association refused his requests for their advice and support in connection with his complaints of racial discrimination he was making against the regulatory and professional authorities. The Tribunal ruled that Chaudhary had a legitimate complaint that he had been discriminated against and that the BMA might also themselves be discriminating against him on racial grounds by refusing to assist him. Moreover, this had a separate and distinct effect on his loss of career.

      The Tribunal also noted a requirement or condition imposed on Chaudhary by BMA, that in order to receive BMA assistance and support, a member must not complain of race discrimination against the regulatory authorities in their application of medical training. The Tribunal applied Section 1 (1) (b) (i) of RRA, finding that “relevant circumstances” for the comparison of the impact of the requirement or condition must be the same or not materially different as between the comparators (section 3(4)). The instant case showed the relevant circumstances of the comparators and the disproportionate impact on the Applicant.

      The Tribunal cited the case of James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2AC 751,[37] whereby the Council only provided free access and use to a swimming pool to those state pensionable aged 60 for women and 65 for men, was held to be discriminative towards sex and to directly discriminate against men. Also, in the case of Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] ICR 385[38], the school’s refusal to admit a Sikh boy unless he cut his hair and remove his turban was held not to be amounting to direct discrimination. The Claimant however, succeeded in the House of Lords on indirect discrimination where it was held that the Sikhs are a racial group and that there was unlawful indirect discrimination against the Sikh boy by the school authorities for imposing such a requirement or condition under Section 1 (1) (b) of the RRA 1976.

      On sex discrimination and equal pay, the EAT reviewed the case of Sharp v Caledonia Group Service Ltd. [2005] UKEAT 0041_05_0111[39] on appeal from a judgment of a London Employment Tribunal. The decision being appealed from dismissed the claim of Appellant in her complaint under s 1 of the Equal Pay Act. The Tribunal ruled that the difference in the pay between her and Mr. Barnes was due to a genuine material factor which was not the difference in sex. However, she was successful in her claim under the Sex Discrimination Act claim in respect of the difference in amount of discretionary bonus scheme and thus, Respondent was ordered to pay her the sum of £5,000 for injury to her feelings.

On appeal, the Appeal Tribunal ordered the re-hearing of the case since the Employment Tribunal which originally heard the case, used a subjective approach of being swayed by the argument that Mr. Barnes’ seeming special treatment was due to his service to the deceased, one of owners of the company with major holdings therein. The Appeal Tribunal applied the ruling in the case of Brunnhofer v Bank der Osterreichischen Postparkasse AG to the effect that matters that could constitute a genuine material factor like higher qualification, better productivity or length of service. A difference is material if it is significant and relevant. When claimant who has considered herself as wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied, before the court, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.

      In an article by Dan Thomas at Personnel Today,[40] he reported that an airline transsexual airline worker was forced out from her job by her managers, won her claim of sexual discrimination. Marlene Davidson who worked for Flybe had started her sex change procedure. She was mocked and bullied and was told to use disabled lavatories. She was by-passed five times for promotion. Thus, she resigned in 2003. She won her case and was awarded by the court damages.

      In the case of High Quality Lifestyles Ltd. V Watts [2006] UKEAT 061_05_1004 (10 April 2006),[41] respondent appealed the decision of the Employment Tribunal in finding that there was direct discrimination committed against their care worker who is HIV+. He was suspended and dismissed by Respondent after he disclosed his condition. On appeal the EAT, the direct discrimination finding was set aside and dismissed on the ground that the Employment Tribunal failed to construct a hypothetical comparator. It is necessary for ‘comparison for only then can there be a judgment that the treatment of one was “less favourable” than the treatment which would be afforded to the other.’[42]The comparator must have the same abilities, skills and experience. The comparator must also have a medical condition with the same risk of causing others illness or injury. If the Tribunal found that the comparator would have been dismissed then the Claimant has not been less favourably treated. The necessary facts to be proven by the Claimant so that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. This a workable model from which the Tribunal can conclude that the comparator would not be dismissed. The Employment Tribunal failed to do. The case however, is subject to appeal on two points, for the Claimant to show that Respondent unlawfully treated him after the disclosure or if this has been done, for the Respondent to prove that they did not treat Claimant less favourably.

Analysis and Conclusion

      The section shall analyse the laws on employment against discrimination in general terms using as basis the procedural and substantive aspects. It shall also include a 2006 Report on Statistics on Women by the CEDAW.

Procedural 

      A possibility of an in-depth analysis of the impact of antidiscrimination laws in the field of employment as implemented and enforced by the Government and the legal system largely depends on a mastery of knowledge on how the whole system works. In a nutshell, the laws that apply to issues of employment primarily are the Acts of Parliament or the statutes. These are known as domestic primary legislation. The Statutory Instruments are the secondary sources of legislation.

Another source would be the Codes of Practice by the Employment Opportunities Commission, the provisions of the European Council Treaty, the directives of the European Community (EC directives),[43] and the European Community Recommendations.[44] Equally important to stress is that Statutory Instruments have in part been superseded by common law. Before legislation has been developed, employment relationship is governed by the traditional common law which is common law of contract. The modern legislation is supplemented by case law interpretation by the courts and tribunals. It is important to note that European law prevails over domestic laws and domestic courts and tribunals are duty-bound to apply its provisions and principles. In case of conflict, the court shall refer this to the European Court of Justice to decide on the proper interpretation of the law. This has the effect of ensuring the uniformity in its application, interpretation and effect.[45]

      Employment related claims are cognizable by the Employment Tribunals (ETs). These ETs are separate and distinct from each other such that a decision of one is not binding on another but may only have a persuasive effect.[46] Anent appeals, these may be taken against decisions of the employment tribunals before the Employment Appeal Tribunal on grounds of mistakes of law and perversity. The decisions of the EAT are binding on the ETs and may be appealed to the Court of Appeal on special grounds. The final level of appeal would be before the House of Lords.[47] This multi level appeal system has ensured machinery by which a decision in a case can be decided in accordance with the manner by which others of similar nature are decided. Thus, achieving uniformity in legal precedents and from which other similarly situated cases are decided in accordance with the legal principles enunciated.

      Based on the foregoing, it is clear that case law developed through time with the interpretation and application of the pertinent laws by the tribunals. To ensure that the decisions on particular issues are closer to the correct interpretation and application, respondent or claimant, as the case may be, can appeal the decision of the Employment Tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which may remit the case for further hearing or fresh hearing; set aside the decision and render its own based on errors or mistakes of law. The multi level appeal mechanism ensures decisions rendered to be more in conformance with the provisions of the law. The ECJ’s role on the other hand assures uniformity and consistency with broad and overall case law pronouncements. Thus in the case of Automatic Holdings plc v HM Commissioners for Inland Revenue,[48] the ECJ ruled that ‘insofar as there is a conflict between that decision and earlier U.K. decisions then we must now follow the European decision.’

Substantive Law

       The UK provisions are narrower in scope than the EC Directives. In retrospect, Council Directive 2000/43/EC (Race Directive) and Council Directive 2000/78/EC (Employment Directive) were implemented by Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief). Article 3 of the Race Directive includes and covers employment, self employment and occupation while the provisions of the Amendment Regulations only cover employment and not occupation. Thus, in the case of the case of Mingeley v Pennock and Ivory t/a  [2004] IRLR 373, the appellate court ruled that the taxi driver is not considered an ‘employee’ and not covered by a contract of employment, consequently he is not entitled to protection under the RRA 1975 or by its amendment.

      Another instance is that the Employment and Race Directives define ‘indirect discrimination’ as to include within its scope future and prospective alleged acts of indirect discrimination while the provisions of regulations only cover past and actual acts of indirect discrimination.  The regulations require from the one who claims indirect discrimination to prove that he/she has been actually put at a disadvantage while the Directives contemplates cases where the neutral provision, practice or criterion puts a person at a disadvantage even if the circumstances have not yet transpired.

     The Religion or Belief Regulations is limited in scope as compared with the Directives considering that the regulations define ‘religion/belief’ as ‘any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief’ but does not include within its protection those with no religion, or religious, or philosophical belief.

      In sum, antidiscrimination laws are by nature, fragmentary. Thus, there is a public outcry to make this a single comprehensive equality act.  There are also numerous inconsistencies between the discrimination laws and the regulations. For instance, religion, age and sexual orientation discrimination are only prohibited in the area of employment, absent in other areas, such as education, delivery of goods and services, etc.[49] 

Statistics on Women 

      In a recent 2006 Report compiled by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)[50] it is reported that ‘only 46% of minority ethnic women are in paid employment compared to 61% of minority ethnic men and 68% of white women. In a study of lesbian, gay and bisexual trade unionists, 44% reported discrimination due to their sexuality. In another study, two-thirds of lesbians and gay men surveyed reported workplace discrimination including dismissal, physical and sexual assault, ridicule and verbal abuse.’ It further reported that the gender pay gap in the UK is one of the highest in Europe: women who work part-time earn just 59% of men’s part-time hourly pay and women who work full-time earn 82% of the male average hourly wage. This pay gap affects women who have few qualifications and new graduates.[51]

      In sum, the antidiscrimination laws have been effective and successful but the degree of its effectiveness is rather slow and low. There should be a unified effort from all sectors of Government to rationalize the laws so that it can be more sensitive to the identified deficiencies and flaws in the legal provisions. This can be done by further amending the provisions of laws to further clarify/add elements and requisites. Moreover, a single equality act may be necessary to take away, the rather fragmentary nature in its implementation. There should be a unified body to address the law reforms on the matter taking into consideration the relative and identified weak provisions of the laws. Much is desired and much is to be done to provide equality in the workplace–not only by Government in providing the needed direction and political will but also by the private sector and the non-governmental organizations.

Bibliography 

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2004). Prejudice Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

Amnesty International, Library Online Documentation Archive, 2006, UNITED KINGDOM Human Rights: A Broken Promise, AI Index: EUR 45/004/2006 23 February 2006 retrieved 09 March 2007 <http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR450042006>

Amnesty International, Library Online Documentation Archive, 2006, UNITED KINGDOM: Human Rights: a broken promise, AI Index 45/004/2006 retrieved 06 March 2007 <http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR450042006>

Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act  (ATCSA 2000) s 1.

Automatic Holdings plc v HM Commissioners for Inland Revenue, [2005] UKHL 54, par. 16.

British and Irish Legal Institute, British Medical Association v Chaudhary [2004] UKEAT 1351_01_2403 (24 March 2004, retrieved on 07 March 2007  <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2004/1351_01_2403.html>

British and Irish Legal Institute,  Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2004] UKEAT 0445_02_1601 (16 January 2004), retrieved 07 March 2007 <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0445_02_1601.html>

British and Irish Legal Institute, High Quality Lifestyles Ltd. V Watts [2006] UKEAT 061_05_1004 (10 April 2006) retrieved 09 March 2007 <http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2006/0671_05_1004.html>

British and Irish Legal Institute, James v v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2AC 751, retrieved 08 March 2007 <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1990/6.html>

British and Irish Legal Institute, Law Society v Bahl [2003] IRLR 640, retrieved 07 March 2007 <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/1056_01_3107.html>

British and Irish Legal Institute, Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] ICR 385. retrieved 08 March 2007 <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/7.html>

British and Irish Legal Institute, Sharp v Caledonia Group Service Ltd. [2005] UKEAT 0041_05_0111 retrieved 08 March 2007 <http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2005/0041_05_0111.html>

British Employment Law, emplaw.co.uk Commentary: Sex Discrimination/General Introductory Note retrieved on 6 March 2007 <http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfreeredirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f084001.htm>

Brunnhofer v Bank der Osterreichischen Postparkasse AG cited in Sharp v Caledonia Group.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW( which was opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979 entry into force 3 September 1981, in accordance with article 27(1) International Council for Human Rights retrieved 04 March 2007 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/e1cedaw.htm>

Council Directive 2000/43/EC (Race Directive)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC (Employment Directive

Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention–Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation, adopted on 25 June 1958 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its forty-second session entry into force 15 June 1960, in accordance with Article 8 retrieved 05 March 2007  <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_ilo111.htm>

Ellis, E., EU Anti-Discrimination Law, Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, 2005, pp. 1-11

Employment Act 2002.

Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

Employment Equality (Religion or belief) Regulations 2003 c 3.

Equal Opportunities Commission, ‘Interpreting Domestic Common Law’ retrieved 08 March 2007 <http://www.eoc-law.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=2719>

Hepple, B., M Coussey and T Choudhury, Hart, Equality : A new framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, 2000, paras 2.4 – 2.7.

Human Rights Act 1958 s 6.

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Adopted on 25 June 1958 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its forty-second session  entry into force 15 June 1960, in accordance with Article 8,  International Council for Human Rights, retrieved 04 March 2007 <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm>

International Council for Human Rights of the United Nations, General Assembly Resolution No. 2106 dated 21 December 1965 which came into force on 04 January 1969 in accordance with Article 19, paras. 3, 11, Article 5 (e)

International Council for Human Rights, Discrimination, retrieved 03 March 2007 <http://www.ichr-law.org/english/expertise/areas/discrimination.htm>

Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 527 at 576.

Office of the Public Sector Information, National Archives, Human Rights Act of 1988, retrieved 05 March 2007

                  <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm>

Protection from  Harassment Act 1977 c 4.

Race Relations Act 2000 Part 1. Articles 1 (A), 2, 3 (1).

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Part 1 s 1 (1).

Sex Discrimination Act  1999, as amended.

Thomas, D., ‘Transsexual wins Sex Discrimination against Airline’, PersonnelToday., 2005, retrieved 09 March <http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/11/10/32497/transsexual-wins-sex-discrimination-case-against-airline.html>

Why Women.org.uk, 2006 Statistics about Women in the UK, ‘ Employment’  retrieved 11 March 2007  <http://www.whywomen.org.uk/Downloads/Statistics.pdf.>

YourRights.org.uk, The Liberty Guide to Human Rights, UK Law on Equality and Discrimination.2005, retrieved 05 March 2007 <http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/right-to-recieve-equal-treatment/uk-law-on-equality-and-discrimination/uk-law-on-equality-and-discrimination.shtml>

YourRights.org.uk, The Liberty Guide to Human Rights, 2005, The Gender Recognition Bill,.2005, retrieved 05 March 2007 <http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/right-to-recieve-equal-treatment/sexual-orientation-and-transgender-discrimination/transgender-discrimination/the-gender-recognition-bill.shtml>  

Summary List of Cases 

Automatic Holdings plc v HM Commissioners for Inland Revenue, [2005] UKHL 54, par. 16.

British Medical Association v Chaudhary [2004] UKEAT

Brunnhofer v Bank der Osterreichischen Postparkasse AG cited in Sharp v Caledonia Group

Davidson v Flybe cited in the article of Dan Thomas.

Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2004] UKEAT 0445_02_1601

High Quality Lifestyles Ltd. V Watts [2006] UKEAT 061_05_1004 (10 April 2006)

James v  Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2AC 751

Law Society v Bahl [2003] IRLR 640

Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] ICR 385

Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 527 at 576.

Sharp v Caledonia Group Service Ltd. [2005] UKEAT 0041_05_0111 

    [1] General Assembly Resolution No. 2106 dated 21 December 1965 which came into force on 04 January 1969 in accordance with Article 19.

   [2] Ibid. par. 3.

   [3] Ibid. par. 11.

   [4] Ibid. Article 5, sub paragraph (e).

   [5] International Council for Human Rights, Discrimination, retrieved 03 March 2007

http://www.ichr-law.org/english/expertise/areas/discrimination.htm

      [6] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2004). Prejudice Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.

     7 International Council for Human Rights, Discrimination., retrieved 04 March 2007

http://www.ichr-law.org/english/expertise/areas/discrimination.htm

     8 International Council for Human Rights, Discrimination, retrieved 04 March 2007

http://www.ichr-law.org/english/expertise/areas/discrimination.htm

    [9] Article 1 (1). International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Adopted on 25 June 1958 by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation and entered into force 15 June 1960, in accordance with Article 8,  International Council for Human Rights, retrieved 04 March 2007 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm

      [10] Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) entered into force 3 September 1981, in accordance with article 27(1) International Council for Human Rights, retrieved 04 March 2007 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/e1cedaw.htm

     [11] Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention–Convention (No. 111) concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation, entrered into force 15 June 1960, in accordance with Article 8. See also http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_ilo111.htm.

    [12] Office of the Public Sector Information, National Archives, Human Rights Act of 1988, retrieved 05 March 2007

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm

   [13] Human Rights Act 1958 s 6.

   [14] YourRights.org.uk, The Liberty Guide to Human Rights, 2005, UK Law on Equality and Discrimination.2005, retrieved 05 March 2007 http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/right-to-recieve-equal-treatment/uk-law-on-equality-and-discrimination/uk-law-on-equality-and-discrimination.shtml

    [15] E. Ellis, 2005, EU Anti-Discrimination Law, Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, p.1.

      [16] Ibid., pp. 7- 10.

      [17] Ibid., p.11.

      [18] Race Relations Act 2000 Part 1. Article 3 (1).

     [19] Ibid., Article 2 and 3 (A).

     [20] Ibid., Article 1.

     [21] Ibid., Article 1(A).

     [22] Ibid., Article 3(A).

    [23] Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Part 1 s 1 (1).

      [24] British Employment Law, emplaw.co.uk Commentary: Sex Discrimination/General Introductory Note retrieved on 6 March 2007 http://www.emplaw.co.uk/researchfree-redirector.aspx?StartPage=data%2f084001.htm

      [25] Employment Act 2002.

      [26]  Protection from  Harassment Act 1977 c 4.

      [27] SDA 1999, as amended.

     [28] YourRights.org.uk, The Liberty Guide to Human Rights, 2005, The Gender Recognition Bill,.2005, retrieved 05 March 2007 http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/right-to-recieve-equal-treatment/sexual-orientation-and-transgender-discrimination/transgender-discrimination/the-gender-recognition-bill.shtml

    [29] Ibid.

      [30] Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

     [31] Employment Equality (Religion or belief) Regulations 2003 c 3.

    [32]  Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

     [33] British and Irish Legal Institute,  Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2004] UKEAT 0445_02_1601 (16 January 2004), retrieved 07 March 2007 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0445_02_1601.html

     [34] British and Irish Legal Institute, Law Society v Bahl [2003] IRLR 640, retrieved 07 March 2007 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2003/1056_01_3107.html

      [35] see Lord Nicholls in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 527 at 576.

      [36] British and Irish Legal Institute, British Medical Association v Chaudhary [2004] UKEAT 1351_01_2403 (24 March 2004, retrieved on 07 March 2007  http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2004/1351_01_2403.html

       [37] British and Irish Legal Institute, James v v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2AC 751, retrieved 08 March 2007 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1990/6.html

      [38] British and Irish Legal Institute, Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] ICR 385. retrieved 08 March 2007

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1982/7.html

      [39] British and Irish Legal Institute, Sharp v Caledonia Group Service Ltd. [2005] UKEAT 0041_05_0111 retrieved 08 March 2007 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2005/0041_05_0111.html

      [40] Dan Thomas, 10 November 2005, PersonnelToday.com, Transsexual wins Sex Discrimination against Airline, retrieved 09 March 2007 http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/11/10/32497/transsexual-wins-sex-discrimination-case-against-airline.html

     [41] British and Irish Legal Institute, High Quality Lifestyles Ltd. V Watts [2006] UKEAT 061_05_1004 (10 April 2006) retrieved 09 March 2007 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKEAT/2006/0671_05_1004.html

     [42] Ibid.,par. 47.

      [43] Equal Opportunities Commission, ‘Interpreting Domestic Common Law’ retrieved 08 March 2007 http://www.eoc-law.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=2719

      [44] Amnesty International, Library Online Documentation Archive, 2006, UNITED KINGDOM: Human Rights: a broken promise, AI Index 45/004/2006 retrieved 06 March 2007 http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR450042006

     [45]  Ibid.

      [46] Amnesty International, Library Online Documentation Archive, 2006, UNITED KINGDOM: Human Rights: a broken promise, AI Index 45/004/2006 retrieved 06 March 2007 http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR450042006

    [47]  Ibid.

    [48] [2005] UKHL 54, par. 16.

    [49] B Hepple, M Coussey and T Choudhury, Hart, 2000, Equality : A new framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti Discrimination  Legislation, paras 2.4 – 2.7.

   [50] Why Women.org.uk, 2006, Statistics about Women in the UK, chapter on Employment  retrieved 11 March 2007  http://www.whywomen.org.uk/Downloads/Statistics.pdf.

      [51] Why Women.org.uk, 2006, Statistics about Women in the UK, chapter on Employment  retrieved 11 March 2007  http://www.whywomen.org.uk/Downloads/Statistics.pdf.