Human Rights and Civil Liberties
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
The past forty years have been witness to the ushering in and fortification of legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in Britain. In a systematic and inexorable manner the law has been extended in order to include employment, housing and service providers. Moreover, public authorities have been vested with a positive responsibility to promote racial equality.
Racial Discrimination in the UK
This essay describes racial discrimination, which is present in the United Kingdom and the formulation of the Race Relations Act 1976 and its amendment in 2000, in order to curtail such discrimination. Paramjit Singh, a bearded Sikh, was denied employment and in this manner became a victim of racial discrimination. In this context, various relevant cases relating to racial discrimination have been discussed. The relevant provisions of the Race Discrimination Act have been analyzed and applied to the problem question. Furthermore, racially discriminatory advertisements in respect of job offers and the legal implications created have been discussed.
Two decades have elapsed since legislation to combat racial discrimination has been enacted. However, the non –white ethnic minorities in Britain are not treated on par with the whites. This problem has been seen to be significant while seeking employment. In the United Kingdom, race discrimination has been declared unlawful by the Race Relations Act 1976. Discrimination in the areas of employment, education, training and in the provision of goods, services and facilities has been strictly prohibited. Such discrimination is further classified as direct and indirect.
Direct discrimination occurs when a person or group is treated less favourably than others because of, for example, his/her or their colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Indirect discrimination occurs when a requirement or condition that is applied equally to all people cannot be met by an equal proportion of people from a particular group, the condition or requirement is not justifiable and is to the detriment of those who cannot comply.
In order to address the problem of race discrimination the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 was formulated. This act makes it mandatory for public authorities to review their policies and procedures in order to eliminate discrimination and promote race equality. The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 is an amendment of the Race Relations Act 1976. According to which discrimination on the basis of race, colour, nationality or ethnicity is unlawful.
This amended act requires public officials to not only address unlawful discrimination but also to proactively ensure that such discrimination does not take place. This act is applicable to Ministers, Central government departments, local authorities, police authorities, health authorities, NHS Trusts, education authorities, grant aided and self governed educational institutions, professional bodies, libraries etc. The Commission for Racial Equality has been empowered to conduct investigations, seek judicial review and issue compliance orders whenever a public body fails to discharge its duties as specified in this act.
The Present Situation in UK in Respect of Racial Discrimination
The reason attributed to the lower employment and earnings levels of ethnic minorities is their lesser qualifications and fewer years of schooling. In respect of blacks 50% of their schooling had been obtained abroad while in respect of Indians and Pakistanis most of their education had been obtained outside the UK. In respect of qualifications the number of employed persons who had obtained degrees was more or less the same with regard to whites, blacks and Pakistanis. However, the number of employed Indians with degrees was higher than any other groups. Moreover, the number of unemployed persons who have degrees is much less and blacks and Pakistanis constitute a larger proportion of such unemployed persons. The lowest employment rate amongst all ethnic groups is that of the blacks, which in comparison to the whites, is less by eighteen percent. The corresponding rate for Indians is two percent. The Pakistanis have an employment rate which is seventeen percent lower than that of whites and factors like education, size of the family etc., make a significant contribution to this lower employment.
Moreover, persons belonging to ethnic minority groups earn less. For example, the hourly earnings of white Britons (in 1997 prices) for the period 1993 to 1996 was £9.08, whereas the corresponding remuneration for Pakistanis was £7.00, for blacks it was £7.89 and in respect of Indians it was £8.23 per hour.
The majority of relevant authorities and institutions have implemented a race equality scheme or policy. The relevant legislation has set out very clearly the minimum standards that have to be present in public authorities and institutions. Although the legislation has been effective to a certain extent, it is essential that effective leadership, guidance and support are in existence so as to eliminate discrimination “promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different racial groups.”
In Mohamed v. West Coast Trains Limited, Mohamed, an Indian Muslim contended that his religion required him to maintain a beard with a minimum length of a fist’s length. The West Coast Trains where Mohamed was employed asked him to keep his beard neatly trimmed. Mohamed filed a claim of religious discrimination with the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which refused to allow his claim as he was unable to furnish evidence to establish that he had been asked to trim his beard subsequent to the enforcement of the relevant regulations.
Social and Economic Dimensions of Discrimination
The social and economic effects of including persons who had been previously marginalized at work are of a much greater significance. Labour market figures are witness to the fact that people belonging to marginalized groups lack equality and that such a situation is still extant in the UK. A detailed scrutiny of this information divulges that “significant and distinctive employment trends and patterns among disadvantaged social groups”. This evidence has made it amply clear that it is tantamount to wishful thinking to assume that workplace inequality no longer exists. Certain groups have been so persistently marginalized that “labour market opportunities are mediated and constrained by gender, race, age, disability and sexual orientation, albeit in qualitatively different ways”.
Pilkington has scrutinized racial disadvantage in the workplace and as a result avows that “ethnic minorities in general have a higher rate of unemployment than whites.” This contention corroborates the previous studies undertaken by the Commission for Racial Equality in 1993 and 1994, as has been described in the Equal Opportunities Review (1995) and in the work of Noon and demonstrates an unambiguous dissimilarity between general intention towards equality at work and specific action.
In respect of individual terms, the benefits accruing due to equitable employment inclusion are inestimable. These correspond to the advantages that accrue due to the role of work in confirming the identity, involvement and contribution for individuals as a result of which the whole of society benefits. It is noteworthy that managing diversity, as distinct from equal opportunities, makes it possible for people to maintain their diversity characteristics in work and to ensure that these characteristics need not be made secondary or inferior in order to be analogous to the group characteristics in work or to the white male standard that is inherent in equal opportunities.
It is very likely that the process of managing diversity may finally represent the celebration of divergences as a result of which organisations stand to achieve competitive advantage, although such a situation’s development has to commence from valuing differences. Mant has argued that the altering character of work roles in developed economies in the recent past has resulted in the emergence of three types of individual anticipation and requirements, namely, the need for equity and justice; the desire for security and relative certainty and the need for fulfillment, satisfaction and progression.
Political Emergence of Ethnic Minorities
There had been an upsurge, in the 1990s, in the political self consciousness of ethnic minorities as well as the efforts made by the main political parties to encourage ethnic minority candidates to contest in the elections. Sixty – six ethnic minority candidates contested the 2001 general elections in comparison to the mere forty – seven who had contested the elections in 1997. Due to the fact that these candidates “were not evenly distributed between the parties and many were fielded for unwinnable seats,” only twelve ethnic minority Members of Parliament could enter the House of Commons and all of them belonged to the Labour Party.
Racial discrimination has assumed great significance and several political debates are being held to decide whether the measures being adopted to mitigate racial discrimination are adequate. The age old complacency received a severe setback due to the occurrence of several race riots that took place in the year 2002, in places like Old Ham, Burnley and Bradford. The riots that took place here constituted some of the worst examples of racially provoked public disorder since the early 1980s. In addition, an all-inclusive investigation into the adequacy of police handling of racially motivated attacks was conducted, especially after the Stephen Lawrence case, in which the police investigations into the death of a black teenager seemed to be apathetic. Unquestionably, policing has been one facet of British life that has been subjected to widespread allegations of discrimination and tactlessness Vis – a – Vis the ethnic minorities. Despite the recent initiatives to refute these allegations by making arduous efforts to enhance ethnic minority confidence in the police, the results are not encouraging.
The Religious Beliefs of the Sikhs
Guru Gobind Singh Sahib the tenth and last guru of the Sikhs directed the Khalsa to pray to the one Supreme Being, observe the Panj Kakar or five representations of purity, relinquish caste specific rites and practice only Sikh rituals, abstain from removing hair from the body, desist from the consumption of despoiled meat, refrain from committing adultery and the ingestion of stimulants like tobacco. These five symbols of purity are first, Kachha or underwear, which signifies chastity. Second, Kara or a metal wrist band, which connotes self-control and submission to the Guru. Third, Kirpan or sword, which signifies strength and valour. Fourth, Kes or hair that has not been cut, which represents the saints of the past. Fifth, Kanga or comb for maintaining the hair in a well groomed and hygienic manner.
In respect of the importance that Sikhs attach to their hair, it can be stated that they regard hair as a god given gift. They sub – categorize the functions of hair first, as a means of ornamentation, second, as having psychological value because they retain their hair long in order to please the almighty, three, as serving to distinguish a Sikh from others, four, uncut hair connotes sacrifice because several Sikhs had preferred death to having their hair cut, five, hair increases the ability of a person to realize God.
In Panesar V Nestle Co. Ltd (1980) ICR 144, CA and (1980) IRLR 60 EAT. Panesar was not offered a job by the Nestle Company’s confectionery division, which insisted that its employees had to be clean shaven for the reasons of hygiene. Panesar filed a case of indirect discrimination against Nestle, but the court held that although there was indirect discrimination, nevertheless the requirements of hygiene were more important. Hence, the denial of appointment was upheld.
However, in Mandla & Another v. Lee a Sikh boy was required by the headmaster of the school in which admission was being sought for him, to stop wearing the turban and cut his hair. The House of Lords opined that Sikhs constituted a racial group and that the school’s objection to the turban and uncut hair could be attributed to the “applicant’s origins, and not ‘irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic origins.” Hence, the House of Lords permitted the appeal. In this case their Lordships had clearly pointed out that Sikhs constitute a group defined by ethnic origin. Since, Paramjit Singh is a Sikh any decision favouring them will also be beneficial to him.
Paramjit Singh as a Sikh has to follow the customs and conventions of Sikhism. Further, he has to adhere to the Panj Kakar, like wearing the Kachha, Kara, Kanga and Kirpan and he has to maintain Kes or unshorn hair. Therefore, the shaving or cutting of hair for a Sikh is totally abhorrent. In general, a Sikh will not permit any one to cut his hair. It is the worst insult that one can heap on a Sikh by asking him to cut his hair or his beard. As such it is essential for Sikhs to abstain from cutting their hair and no person can compel them to relinquish these five K’s.
Paramjit Singh was asked by Graham to shave his beard if he wanted to be employed by him. Sikhs have a distinct identity with unshorn hair, beards and moustaches. Therefore Graham’s condition for employing Paramjit Singh is highly discriminatory.
Discrimination in Employment Opportunity
The relevant sections of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660) in respect of discrimination on religious grounds of employment are appended below:
Section 3. – (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if –
(a) on grounds of religion or belief, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religion or belief as B, but –
(i) which puts or would put persons of the same religion or belief as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons,
(ii) which puts B at that disadvantage, and
(iii) which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2) The reference in paragraph (1) (a) to religion or belief does not include A’s religion or belief.
(3) A comparison of B’s case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.
Section 6. – (1) It is unlawful for an employer, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against a person –
(a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining to whom he should offer employment;
(b) in the terms on which he offers that person employment; or
(c) by refusing to offer, or deliberately not offering, him employment.
These two sections are applicable to Paramjit Singh, because he is being discriminated against by Graham on account of his religious beliefs (his beard).
Paramjit a Sikh waiter had been awarded the prestigious ‘Waiter of the Year’ by a local newspaper, nevertheless, he was denied employment as he was unwilling to shave his beard, since the shaving of hair transgressed his religious beliefs. However, Peter a Rastafarian had been given this job and there had been no insistence that he should shave himself. This constitutes Racial Discrimination, which is considered unlawful as per the Race Relations Act. If a person discriminates against another by treating the other less favourably than another person, where such discrimination is on racial grounds it is unlawful. In this problem Paramjit has been treated less favourably than Peter and therefore, there is race discrimination. Hence, Paramjit can approach the Employment Tribunal for redressal.
The race relations act protects both applicants for jobs and employees and section 3 of this act defines race as colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Moreover, it defines direct and indirect discrimination and victimization. It makes racial discrimination unlawful in employment, training, education, housing, public appointments and the provision of goods, facilities and services. The Race Relations Act Amendment 2000 came into force in April 2001 and since that time it has covered all the acts of the public authorities. The commission for racial equality was set up under the act to investigate complaints of discrimination.
Based on the type of claim, an aggrieved person can get his rights enforced either in employment tribunals or county courts. The Commission for Racial Equality or the CRE is duty bound to promote the interests of the Act and to this end provides advice, assistance and financial aid where necessary. It has the primary function of enforcement in “relation to certain areas such as discriminatory advertisements.” Under the Race Relations Act or the RRA the CRE is empowered to initiate judicial review proceedings against public bodies which in its opinion have infringed the general duty.
Some cases in which the courts discussed racial discrimination are discussed in the sequel. In King v. Great Britain – China centre, the aspirant for the job, whose education had been received in Great Britain, was of Chinese origin. She applied for the job of Deputy Director at the China Centre, which had been advertised as being available. She was eminently qualified for this job as she had a command over Chinese and was personally acquainted with China, which was the requirement for that job. Moreover, all the eight short listed candidates were white and one of them was selected. The Employment Tribunal, on being approached by her upheld her claim because the employer had been unable to prove that the treatment accorded to her had not been unfavourable and that this unfavourable treatment had been meted out to her because of her race. Moreover, the employers had stated that none of the five ethnic Chinese applicants for that job had been short listed.
In addition, the employers divulged the fact that no ethnically Chinese person had ever worked at the centre. The Employment Tribunal opined that it was justified in arriving at the conclusion that she had been discriminated against because of the fact that her academic background was dissimilar to the academic background of the existing staff. The Employment Appeal Tribunal permitted this petition on the ground that the tribunal had in this case assumed that the onus of disproving discrimination was vested with the employers. Accordingly, the court of Appeal restored the decision of the industrial tribunal. Paramjit Singh, though an awarded waiter was overlooked for the job because he was a Sikh and Peter, a Rastafarian, was preferred over Paramjit. In King v. Great Britain – China centre, a Chinese woman was denied employment, despite the fact that she had the required eligibility criteria, and a white person was selected for that job. This indicates that the Chinese woman was accorded less favourable treatment. Similarly, Paramjit Singh has also been subjected to discrimination.
In Jones v. Tower Boot Co. Ltd, the applicant, a sixteen year old employee of mixed race, worked as a machine operator for the respondent prior to submitting his resignation. Due to physical and mental, racially motivated harassment by his colleagues he had resigned. The Tribunal found that this racial harassment had taken place during the course of Jones’ employment and that as a result the employer was vicariously liable for the harm caused to Jones. Harassment at the workplace of non – whites has been held to be racial discrimination by the court. Since, Peter had been selected for the job, despite Paramjit Singh being more competent, this is tantamount to racial discrimination.
Similarly, in Barracks v. Cole the Court of Appeal was approached by the employer who had refused to provide information as to the reason for the job applicant’s security verification failure. Ms. Barracks, the job applicant was a black policewoman, and Cole was a police task force that was tackling gun crime. Since, the reasons for her non selection were not forthcoming; she assumed that she was being discriminated on the basis of her race. Ms. Barracks preferred a claim of race discrimination before the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal ruled that the employer had to furnish the reason for not selecting her or in the alternative the legal justification for not revealing this information to her; otherwise it would set aside the defense plea. On appeal by the employer, the Court of Appeal sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to deal with the case, stating that Ms. Barracks had to draw an inference of race discrimination and that the employer had to disprove her allegation.
Paramjit Singh can establish racial discrimination as another bearded person had been selected for the job, despite the former being an outstanding waiter. Hence, on the basis of the decision in Barracks v. Cole, the Tribunal will consider his racial discrimination claim favourably.
Discrimination in Advertisements
The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful to either “publish or make arrangements for advertisements that discriminate on the basis of racial grounds… Both publishers and advertisers are legally responsible for ensuring that advertisements are lawful.” There are circumstances, however, when employers and other organizations may claim exemption from this prohibition. Section 5 of the Race Relations Act, provides exemption to recruit people from a particular ethnic group for certain jobs. Moreover, section 29 of the Race Relations act states that it is “unlawful to publish, or cause to be published, any advertisement that indicates or might reasonably understood as indicating, an intention by a person to do an act of discrimination.”
However, there are exceptions to section 29 and some of these are, genuine occupational qualification for a job; favouring under represented groups in an organization; jobs requiring persons of a particular nationality; discrimination authorized by statute; when the job entails special skills acquired outside the UK; stipulation of nationality as a condition for representing a country in a sport or game and provision of benefit to its members belonging to a specific group by a charity that is legally permitted.
It is mandatory for the publishers to insist upon the employers and other advertisers who give such advertisements, under the Race Relations Act, to cite the relevant section of the act, and furnish such information as will convince the publishers about the lawfulness of these advertisements. Moreover, the text of the advertisement should clearly indicate the reason for such exceptions.
In our present problem, a job advertisement was given in Loughchester Echo, for a person with genuine Sikh features to work as waiter in a local Punjabi restaurant the Temple Star. The owner of this restaurant assured John the editor of the newspaper that such an advertisement was not discriminatory, because his restaurant was an authentic Punjabi restaurant. Subsequently, Dawn a press reporter submitted this advertisement to the commissioner for racial equality, stating that it was racially discriminating. Further, Paramjit came to know that Peter was offered employment by the Temple Star. Peter left this restaurant on obtaining a better job.
This fact proves that the restaurant did not require any especially skilled persons from any particular ethnic race. Moreover, the advertisement did not contain any statement of exemption as required by the Race Relations Act. Therefore, the advertisement is discriminatory and unlawful. Hence, the publisher as well as the restaurant owner is legally liable for infringement of the provisions of the Race Relations Act. Nevertheless, publishers can evade liability if they are able to establish that they had reasonably relied on a statement by the advertiser that the advertisement was not unlawful, since, the restaurant owner had explicitly told the publisher that the advertisement was not in violation of the Race Discrimination Act, the publisher can evade liability in this context.
Inter alia, on the 16th of February 2006, The Equality Act received Royal Assent. Individuals being discriminated on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, religion and belief or sexual orientation have been provided with much better access to help and support consequent to the Single Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) from October 2007.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 has addressed race discrimination in various fields like employment, education, religion, etc. Nevertheless, a number of shortcomings exist in its implementation. In order to mitigate if not eradicate the adverse effects of this problem a white paper was released by the UK government in 2004 to constitute the Commission for Equality and Human Rights instead of the extant race, disability and sex equality commissions. This new act will also address problems of equality in religion, sexual orientation and age. The 2000 EU Directive on Race was incorporated into English law in July 2003, via the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Consequently, there was an increase in the protection offered “against harassment in non-employment cases, the right to bring a claim against a former employer, a new burden of proof, and a revised genuine occupational qualification.”
From the foregoing discussions, it can be concluded that Sikhs and other ethnic minorities can no longer be discriminated against. With the House of Lords decision in the Mandla v. Lee case, the Sikh community had been identified as a distinct race for the purposes of the Race Relations Act. The Religious beliefs and traditions of the ethnic minorities can no longer be ignored and this has to be borne in mind by all employers. The five K’s which symbolize the religious beliefs of the Sikhs cannot be belittled under any circumstance in the work place and such violators will be penalized. It is ardently hoped that significant reduction in racial discrimination will transpire. This augurs well for Paramjit Singh who will be able to obtain justice for the indirect discrimination suffered by him.
Acts and Legislation
- 2000 and Beyond: Amendment and EU Regulation. Copyright © Commission for Racial Equality 2005. Retrieved on January 4, 2007 from http://www.cre.gov.uk/40years/amendment_eu.html.
- Fairness for all: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights. White Paper. Department for Trade and Industries. Printed in the UK for the Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. ISBN: 0101618522. © Crown Copyright 2004.
- Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Stationery Office Limited. Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, ISBN 0 10 543400 0. Crown Copyright ©
- Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660); Michael and Townshend – Smith, Richard. Townshend – Smith on Discrimination Law: Text, Cases & M. 2004. Routledge Cavendish. ISBN: 1859417957. p. 150.
- Towards Racial Equality An evaluation of the public duty to promote race equality and good race relations in England and Wales (2002), Commission for Racial Equality. Retrieved on January 5, 2007 from
- Ashtiany, Sue. 2002. Race Relations Amendment Act2000. Retrieved on October 30, 2006 from http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/rraa/briefing.shtml
- Job Advertisements. Commission for Racial Equality. Retrieved on January 5, 2007 from http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/employ_ads.html
- Powerful New Equality and Human Rights Body Gets the Go Ahead. February 16, 2006. Department of Trade and Industry. Retrieved on January 4, 2007 from http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=187937&NewsAreaID=2.
- Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Retrieved on January 1, 2007 from http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikhism4.html
- Barracks v. Cole. (2006). EWCA Civ 1041, Court of Appeal, Reported at (2007). IRLR 73. Retrieved on January 5, 2007
- Jones v. Tower Boot Co. Ltd. (1997). IRLR 168, CA. Daniels, Kathy and Macdonald, Lynda. Equality, Diversity and Discrimination: A Student Text. CIPD Publishing. ISBN: 1843981122. P. 46
- King v Great Britain – China centre (1991) IRLR 513, CA. Michael and Townshend – Smith, Richard. Townshend – Smith on Discrimination Law: Text, Cases & M. 2004. Routledge Cavendish. ISBN: 1859417957.Pg 189-193.
- Mandla & another v. Lee. (1983). IRLR 210. House of Lords. Michael and Townshend – Smith, Richard. Townshend – Smith on Discrimination Law: Text, Cases & M. 2004. Routledge Cavendish. ISBN: 1859417957.Pg 144 – 145.
- Mohamed v. West Coast Trains Limited. (2006). UKEAT 0682/05/DA. Retrieved on January 4, 2007 from http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/05_0682ResfhMLNDA.doc
Text Books and Journals
- Connelly, Michael and Townshend – Smith, Richard. On Discrimination Law: Text, Cases & M. Routledge Cavendish. ISBN: 1859417957. Page 189.
- D H Blackaby, D G Leslie, P D Murphy, N C O’Leary, White/ethnic minority earnings and employment differentials in Britain: Evidence from the LFS, Oxford Economic Papers. Oxford: Apr 002.Vol.54, Iss. 2; pg. 270
- Equal Opportunities Review (1995), Race policy not being translated into action, 60, March/April, pp. 16-19.
- Kirkton, g. and Greene, A.M. (2000), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth-Heinemann, London p.38
- Liff, S. (1997), Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics, Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp.11-26.
- Mant, A. (1995), Changing work roles, in Tyson, S. (Ed.), Strategic Prospects for HRM, Institute of Personnel and Development, London, pp. 30-55.
- Maxwell, G., McDougall, M., and Blair, S. (2000), Managing diversity in the hotel sector: the emergence of a service quality opportunity, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 367-73.
- Noon, M. (1993), Racial discrimination in speculative application: evidence from the UK’s top 100 firms, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 35-47.
- Panesar V Nestle Co. Ltd (1980) ICR 144, CA and (1980) IRLR 60 EAT. Daniels, Kathy and Macdonald, Lynda. Equality, Diversity and Discrimination: A Student Text. CIPD Publishing. ISBN: 1843981122. P 53.
- Penney, Sue. Sikhism: Sikhism Foundation Edition. Harcourt Heinemann. ISBN: 0435304755. Pg. 8-9.
- Peele, Gillian. 2004, Governing the UK, Blackwell Publishing, p8.ISBN: 0631226818
- Pilkington, A. (2001), Beyond racial dualism: racial disadvantage and ethnic diversity in the labour market, in Noon, M and Ogbonna, E. (Eds), Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 172-89.
 2000 and Beyond: Amendment and EU Regulation. 2005.
 D H Blackaby, D G Leslie, P D Murphy, N C O’Leary, White/ethnic minority earnings and employment differentials in Britain: Evidence from the LFS, Oxford Economic Papers. Oxford: Apr 002.Vol.54, Iss. 2; pg. 270.
 Macfarlane, Richard and Cook, Mark. 2002. Achieving Community Benefits Through Contracts: Law, Policy and Practice. The Policy Press. ISBN: 1861344244. Page 19.
 The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, August 2002.
 D H Blackaby, D G Leslie, P D Murphy, N C O’Leary, White/ethnic minority earnings and employment differentials in Britain: Evidence from the LFS, Oxford Economic Papers. Oxford: Apr 002. Vol. 54, Iss. 2; pg 270.
 Towards Racial Equality An evaluation of the public duty to promote race equality and good race relations in England and Wales (2002), Commission for Racial Equality.
 (2006). UKEAT 0682/05/DA
 Namely, The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations enforced in December 2003.
 Kirkton, g. and Greene, A.M. (2000), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth-Heinemann, London p.38
 Pilkington, A. (2001), “Beyond racial dualism: racial disadvantage and ethnic diversity in the labour market”, in Noon, M and Ogbonna, E. (Eds), Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 172-89.
 Equal Opportunities Review (1995), “Race policy not being translated into action”, No. 60, March/April, pp. 16-19.
 Noon, M. (1993), “Racial discrimination in speculative application: evidence from the UK’s top 100 firms”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 35-47.
 Mant, A. (1995), “Changing work roles”, in Tyson, S. (Ed.), Strategic Prospects for HRM, Institute of Personnel and Development, London, pp. 30-55.
 Liff, S. (1997), “Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics”, Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp.11-26.
 Maxwell, G., McDougall, M., and Blair, S. (2000), “Managing diversity in the hotel sector: the emergence of a service quality opportunity”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 367-73.
 Mant, A. (1995), “Changing work roles”, in Tyson, S. (Ed.), Strategic Prospects for HRM, Institute of Personnel and Development, London, pp. 30-55.
 Peele, Gillian, 2004, Governing the UK, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0631226818. p 8.
 Sikhism. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Retrieved on January 1, 2007 from http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikhism4.html. The SGPC represents the highest forum and religious body of the Sikhs and this information is from their official portal.
 Penney, Sue. Sikhism: Sikhism Foundation Edition. Pg. 8-9.
 (1980) ICR 144, CA and (1980) IRLR 60 EAT.
 (1983). IRLR 210, HL.
 Lord Fraser et al, while allowing the appeal in Mandla & Another v. Lee (1983). IRLR 210, HL.
 Section 4 of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
 Section 3(1). The Race Relations Act 1976. Retrieved from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031626.htm
 The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
 Sue Ashtiany, 2002.
 (1991) IRLR 513, CA.
 Connelly, Michael and Townshend – Smith, Richard. On Discrimination Law: Text, Cases & M. 2004. Routledge Cavendish. ISBN: 1859417957. Page 189.
 (1997). IRLR 168, CA.
 (2006). EWCA Civ 1041, Court of Appeal, Reported at (2007). IRLR 73.
 Job Advertisements. Retrieved on January 5, 2007 from http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/employ_ads.html
 Sections 5, 7(3), 10(3), 35-38, 29(3), 41, 42, 78 (A), 6, 7(4), 39 and 34 respectively of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
 Job Advertisements. Commission for Racial Equality. Retrieved on January 5, 2007 from http://www.cre.gov.uk/gdpract/employ_ads.html
 Section 29(4). Race Relations Act 1976.
 Powerful New Equality and Human Rights Body Gets Go Ahead. 16th February 2006.
 Fairness for all: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights. White Paper. Department for Trade and Industries. Retrieved from http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/equality/project/cehr_white_paper.pdf
 2000 and Beyond: Amendment and EU Regulation. 2005.