Search results for Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Subjects
Formats
Services
Did you mean to type: Sex Discrimination Act W? (35 results)
85 results found showing 1 - 20
-
Amendments to Sex Discrimination Act 1975 finally published
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008 have finally been published and come into force on 6 April 2008. The Regulations make various changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 so that this now complies with the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC).Definition of sex harassmentThe Regulations expand the def...
News | 18 Mar 2008
-
Changes to the Sex Discrimination Act: what do they mean in practice?
© Workplace Law Group 2008 All rights reserved Changes to Sex Discrimination Act: what do they mean in practice? Changes to the Sex Discrimination Act: what do they mean in practice? Amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) came into force on 6 April 2008. Amongst the changes are amendments to the provisions on sexual harassment which are generating some concerns in the press. These concerns relate to the extent to which employers may become liable for the acts not only of their employees and agents but also for...
News analysis | 17 Apr 2008
-
October amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act delayed
Regulations amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA), which were due to come in to force on 1 October 2007, have been delayed to implement both the EU Gender Directive and aspects of the EU Equal Treatment Amendment Directive.A High Court judgement has found that the UK's sex discrimination laws do not adequately implement the Equal Treatment D...
News | 27 Sep 2007
-
Sex Discrimination Act amended to implement EU Directives
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is to be amended to implement both the EU Gender Directive and certain aspects of the EU Equal Treatment Amendment Directive. The Gender Directive (2004/113) implements the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and the supply of good and services which are available...
News | 21 Sep 2007
-
Changes to the Sex Discrimination Act: what do they mean in practice?
Surley The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, is Guilty of Sexual Discrimination it'self. Why does the ammended section assume that the harrassed person is a woman and not a man? So it should read "A person subjects a Man or a woman to harrassment if he or she engages in unwanted conduct that is related to his or her sex or that of anot...
Comment | 17 Apr 2008
-
Homosexuals NOT Protected by Sex Discrimination Act: MacDonald -v- Advocate General for Scotland
The House of Lords has handed down its decision in the cases of MacDonald -v- Advocate General for Scotland and Pearce -v- Mayfield School. The House of Lords resolved the two competing arguments as to whether homosexuals fall within the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA). In five distinct judgments, the five Law Lords were unanimous in dismissing the appeals. The argument in favour was that if an employer dismisses a male who is sexually attracted to men (that is, a homosexual), but would not dismiss a female who is sexually attracted to men (that is, a h...
Case | 20 Jun 2003
-
Sex discrimination: the pitfalls
... same-sex couples who have entered into a formal civil partnership. Whilst some areas of the Sex Discrimination Act are obvious and easily avoided, in this briefing on sex discrimination, employment expert, Karen Grant, outlines some of the less obvious pitfalls. Employers need to be aware that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act) makes it unlawful to discriminate against any employee because of their sex or because they are married, and this includes temporary workers and trainees. There are no exemptions for small businesses. An employee is covered, regardless of their length of service and whether they are part-...
News analysis | 19 Oct 2009
-
Sex discrimination in union back pay settlement
... members with the council employing the claimants and secured some compensation for employees, including the claimants, who had suffered past pay inequalities. The claimants brought claims alleging, inter alia, that the union had discriminated against them contrary to sections 1(2)(b) and 12 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by prioritising pay protection and future pay over compensation for past inequalities. The employment tribunal upheld the claim of indirect discrimination, finding that, by agreeing to a low settlement for past pay inequalities in order to release more money for future pay protection, the union had...
Case | 28 Oct 2008
-
Changes to sex discrimination legislation - more info
The following changes to the sex discrimination legislation come into force from 6 April.The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2008: amend the definition of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy or maternity to remove any element of comparison. There will be no requirement to compare the woman's treatment to that of a woman who is not pregnant or not on maternity leave; amend the definition of ha...
News | 1 Apr 2008
-
Sex discrimination – Madarassy v. Nomura International
...ns, and after her return the claimant was informed that she was at risk of redundancy. After she was given the lowest score in a redundancy selection process compared with two male colleagues, the claimant was made redundant in November 2001. On her complaint of sex discrimination contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Employment Tribunal directed itself on the burden of proof under section 63A(2), holding that it had to consider whether the claimant was treated any less favourably than a hypothetical male comparator would have been treated in the same circumstances, and, if so, whether it was on the grounds...
Case | 20 Apr 2007
-
High Court ruling on sex discrimination laws leaves public sector employers more vulnerable
...he European Directive which amended the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive. The Government has now responded to the High Court and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), which brought the action, and will not appeal the decision. Instead it will work with the EOC to make the necessary changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 "as soon as reasonably practicable." The High Court's decision means that: It is no longer possible, where treatment alleged is harassment, for employers to maintain that, although unfortunate, the alleged harasser treats everyone like that. Whilst an employer may not be liable for...
Case | 30 Mar 2007
-
Sex discrimination: joint and several liability
...tion on the basis that she had fostered and encouraged the discriminatory behaviour. The employer was a limited company, but the manager was the majority shareholder. Miles v. Gilbank serves as a useful warning that both individuals and employers can be held liable in cases of discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (section 42) makes provision for individuals to be liable if they have knowingly aided another person in an act of discrimination. [The May issue of Workplace Magazine will be looking in detail at discrimination in the workplace, considering: sex discrimination and questioning if the Sex Discri...
Case | 12 Apr 2006
-
Draft guidance issued on the Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005
The Women and Equality Unit has issued draft guidance on the impending changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970. The changes will be introduced by the Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 due to become law in October 2005. The most important are: A new definition of indirect discrimination A new formulation of harassment that includes sexual...
News | 20 Jul 2005
-
Sex Discrimination – burden of proof: Cunningham -v- Quedos
Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, if the complainant establishes facts from which the tribunal may draw an inference of sex discrimination (a prima facie* case), the burden of proof then transfers to the employer. The employer must then prove that no such discrimination has taken place. In Cunningham -v- Quedos Ltd, the tribuna...
Case | 18 Oct 2004
-
Amendments to Sex Discrimination Regulations
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 have just been published, and come into force on Saturday 19 July 2003. Unlike the corresponding Race and Equal Pay Regulations, very little seems to have been written about these amendments. They make two very important changes, namely: - at long last, reversin...
News | 18 Jul 2003
-
Sex Discrimination: Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary -v- Baskerville
The applicant, a police constable, made a complaint against her chief constable, in reliance on sections 17(1) and 41(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, that fellow police officers, some senior to her, had made sexually offensive comments and had subjected her to treatment which amounted to sex discrimination. An employment tribunal rejected an application by the chief constable to strike out the originating application on the ground that the c...
Case | 5 Aug 2003
-
Sex Discrimination in Partnerships: Dave -v- Robinska
...d discriminated against her on the ground of her sex, an employment tribunal held, on a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, that, although the dissolution of the partnership was capable of being an expulsion from the partnership or other detriment within the meaning of section 11(1)(d)(ii) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, it was the act of an individual and not of the 'firm'", by reason of section 5 of the Partnership Act 1890. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the complaint on the ground section 11 did not apply. The applicant appealed. Appeal The Employment Appeal Tribunal held: Section 5 of the P...
Case | 30 Jun 2003
-
Who Should Be a 'Comparator' in Sex Discrimination Cases?
...iticised the tribunal's approach. It made it clear that, when selecting a comparator, it is insufficient to select a male (or males) in a similar position. The comparator must be somebody where "the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other." (Sex Discrimination Act 1975, s5(3)) This meant that the male Chief Inspectors were not appropriate comparators within the meaning of the legislation. There were material differences. First, no complaints had been made against the other Chief Inspectors. Second, the Superintendent lacked direct line responsibility for th...
Case | 10 Mar 2003
-
Sex discrimination directive to finally be introduced
After much delay, the sex discrimination (indirect discrimination and burden of proof) regulations 2001 are due to come into force on 12 October 2001. They make two changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975: First, a section 63A has been inserted. This provides that where an applicant proves a case of discrimination, the tribunal SHALL uphold the complaint of discrimination unless the defendant proves that he did not commit the act. In other words, the burden of proof formally shifts from the accuser ...
News | 3 Oct 2001
-
Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden Proof) Regulations 2001
These Regulations, which came into force today, make two significant amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Firstly, where a complainant can prove facts from which an Employment Tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that discrimination has occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to prove that there was no discrimination. Secondly, the definition of indire...
News | 15 Oct 2001
