Introduction
To further social justice by promoting equality and combating discrimination across multiple dimensions of the UK society, the Equality Act (2010), a key piece of legislation that consolidates and enhances prior anti-discrimination laws, outlines several protected characteristics that are mandatory to be adhered to by not only employers but the SocietySociety in general. Legal protection for specific characteristics aims to protect individuals from discrimination across various areas, such as employment (Sánchez-Monedero et al., 2020, p. 460). Section 4 of the Equality Act (2010) outlines specific protected attributes that highlight its mission to combat bias and promote impartiality. Establishing a comprehensive framework for protection under the Act creates an equal and respectful environment by valuing all individuals despite personal characterizations (Ferrer et al., 2021). This essay aims to critically assess whether or not the Equality Act’s protected characteristics offer enough protection against different forms of discrimination within the UK labor laws. The Act’s protected characteristics’ strengths, and limitations will be scrutinized by assessing its legal foundation and case laws alongside present-day societal norms. The fundamental objective of this evaluation is to determine whether existing provisions offer sufficient safeguards against workplace discrimination or if further measures should be taken toward comprehensive protection. While the Equality Act (2010) establishes a comprehensive legal structure through its protected characteristics, this paper contends that further evaluation is needed to confirm whether they prevent discrimination in UK employment law. This essay strives to pinpoint the Act’s strong points and weaknesses through a meticulous analysis of each safeguarded characteristic.
Protected Characteristics under UK Equality Act 2010
Age
The law provides a safeguard against discrimination against individuals based on their age. Critics argue that while laws protect seniors against workplace discrimination, it is not consistently enforced. Some organizations implement policies that may appear discriminatory, like mandatory retirements. Legitimate reasons for undertaking such practices include the occupational requirements and justifiable ways to attain the organization’s and individual goals; however, questions have been raised regarding the ability of the Act to protect against age discrimination consistently. Additionally, this default retirement age limits any claims for unfair dismissal beyond age 65. Critics argue that this limit may enforce age-based stereotypes and limit job prospects for older individuals (Cole, 2022).In spite of removing the upper age limit recently, there exists a requirement to take care of probable ageism against older workers while recruiting them or promoting them through training programs. Achieving a diverse workforce about age requires implementing inclusive workplace policies and practices.
Despite the criticism outlined above, it is vivid that the Act has successfully promoted equal opportunities. Through recruitment and training and increasing awareness of ageism, the law encourages the adoption of more inclusive workplace policies. Favorable changes were enabled by the provisions stipulated in the Act, and age diversity is becoming increasingly important in different industries, with many removing mandatory retirement schemes. The interpretation and application of anti-discrimination regulations relating to age are largely influenced by the precedent set by the UK court, especially in the case of Seldon v. Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16 reveals how essential it is, according to the Supreme Court to have a legitimate basis when establishing conditions based on age. This case demonstrates the evolving understanding of age discrimination and the need for a nuanced approach to evaluating the proportionality of age-related practices.
Disability
The second protected characteristic is a disability. The inclusion of disability as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010) reflects the recognition of the need to combat discrimination against disabled individuals. However, a challenge stems from proving various grounds stipulated in the law. For instance, individuals claiming disability discrimination will face a significant challenge as they bear the burden of proof under the Act. For individuals with disabilities who are often confronted by difficulties in accessing legal resources and support, this may present further hurdles. The ability of disabled individuals to seek redress and secure necessary protections under the Act may be compromised by this burden. In addition to existing challenges, interpreting reasonable adjustments poses a significant obstacle. In compliance with the Act, employers must accommodate disabled individuals by making reasonable adjustments at work. There are inconsistencies in the implementation of reasonable adjustments due to the subjectivity in defining its scope. Employers may argue that certain adjustments are not reasonable, potentially undermining the rights of disabled individuals to equal treatment and access to employment opportunities (Bunbury, 2020.).
The way that disability discrimination laws are interpreted and put into practice has primarily been shaped by the case law developed within the legal system of the UK. The importance attached to taking into account practicability and efficiency while providing reasonable adjustments was stressed by the Supreme Court during its judgment on Royal Bank of Scotland v. Ashton [2010] UKSC 14. Employers must ensure they proactively meet quashed demands from their impaired employees; studying such cases allows us to learn more about both the struggles of disabled employees and changes in understanding around disability discrimination in the workplace.
Although there were some obstacles, the Act’s impact on promoting workplace inclusivity has been overwhelmingly positive. Raising awareness of disability discrimination became a primary campaign focus, which led many companies to adopt more inclusive practices. Providing accessible facilities and other reasonable accommodations for disabled employees are among the tangible benefits of compliance with this Act. Even with improvements made so far, there are elements that demand more focus (Bunbury,2020). Discrimination against someone assumed to have a disability or with a background involving one is not mentioned in the Act. However, expanding the Act’s protection could help address ongoing discriminatory treatment towards these individuals and provide them with the necessary coverage.
It is important to note that the recognition of disability as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010) and addressing prejudice towards disabled individuals have been acknowledged, but not without facing certain implementation barriers. Due to barriers such as the burden of proof and interpretation of reasonable adjustments, the effectiveness of the Act’s provisions might get affected. By allowing case studies and improved diversity at workspaces that implement these policies, as well as preventing discrimination against people who have a disability, the Act can hasten the achievement of equal treatment for all. However, providing comprehensive protections to disabled individuals in their workplaces requires addressing issues through continual evaluations and expanding scopes.
Gender Reassignment
Incorporating gender reassignment as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010) is an important recognition of transgender rights and protection. The Act played an important role in shaping how gender reassignment rights are viewed legally in the UK today, stressing that protecting a transgender person’s right to privacy and identity while transitioning is essential and that failure to provide them with lawful protection or recognition can result in infringement. The need for more education on transgender rights is evident despite some advancements in raising awareness within SocietySociety and the workplace (Noon, 2018, pp. 202-206). Discrimination against transgender individuals is commonly encountered in several aspects of life, including the workplace, despite the legislation established to protect them. Increasing the level of education and training can help improve the level of inclusivity toward transgender colleagues.
Following the above, it is noted that deciphering the laws around gender reassignment is no easy task, but it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity. There can be situations when extra clarity is required for the application and interpretation of these provisions, and there has been a debate within the legal community regarding whether those undergoing or having undergone gender reassignment should receive protection. Furthermore, the Act allows for positive actions in section 158 that enables employers to take decisive actions towards reducing underrepresentation and ensuring parity for transgender individuals; however, there are provisions allowing for its use by employers; there is limited implementation making it essential for proactive measures pushing for greater gender diversity and inclusivity in workplaces(Noon, 2018, pp. 202-206).
Marriage and Civil Partnership
The inclusion of marriage and civil partnership as protected characteristics in the Equality Act (2010) is essential for promoting equality and protecting individuals from discrimination based on their marital status. This recognition acknowledges the significance of marital relationships and aims to prevent unfair treatment in various areas, including employment. Under the Act, individuals who are married or in a civil partnership are afforded legal protections against discrimination. This includes protection against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimization. UK case law has further reinforced the importance of these protections. For instance, in the case of Bull and Another v. Hall and Another [2013] UKSC 73, the Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be justified on the grounds of religious belief, even in the context of marriage.
Relevant to this is that marriage and civil partnership are acknowledged by the Act, while cohabiting couples do not enjoy comparable protection, which may lead to unfairness. Similar to married or civil partnered couples’ commitment and relationship status, cohabiting couples’ rights lack the same level of legal protection. There is a potential for discrimination against cohabiting individuals in different aspects, including employment rights and benefits due to their exclusion, and the absence of legal protection afforded to couples who live together without being married is a matter that has been widely criticized and called into question. Legal provisions for cohabitating partners were recommended by the Law Commission in its Cohabitation Report of 2007 to redress inequality. While some progress has been made in recent years, such as introducing limited legal rights for cohabiting couples in areas like inheritance and domestic violence, the Act still falls short in providing comprehensive protection for this group.
Pregnancy and Maternity
The Equality Act (2010) acknowledges the vulnerability of pregnant employees and new mothers in the workplace. These provisions aim to prevent discrimination and ensure that individuals are not unfairly treated based on their pregnancy or maternity status. However, challenges persist, necessitating a critical evaluation of the Act’s effectiveness and the identification of strategies to enhance protection for pregnant employees and new mothers.
UK’s interpretation of pregnancy and maternity laws extensively relied on their own case laws. Webb v. EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1994] ICR 1217 set a precedent where an employer can no longer discriminate against an employee under pregnancy-related grounds, as the European Court of Justice ruled. This instance serves as an example of how vital case law is in protecting the rights of pregnant employees and new moms. In actuality, challenges remain even though legal safeguards have been implemented. Moreover, facing pregnancy disadvantages is one challenge that some women experience. Employers’ perceptions of pregnancy and motherhood may lead to biased treatment that affects the career progression of pregnant employees or new moms.
New measures may be taken to enhance the protection of pregnant employees and new mothers through implementing specific strategies, such as raising awareness about the rights of pregnant or new mothers in the workplace among stakeholders, which can lead to positive change. Offering comprehensive training on anti-discrimination laws equipped with assistance in making necessary changes to accommodate everyone’s needs can result in a welcoming work environment that supports diversity. Additionally, challenging the myths surrounding pregnancy and motherhood while promoting an inclusive culture is of utmost importance. Promoting balanced parenting responsibilities through shared leave options can challenge gender biases and promote fairness in employment decisions. It is necessary to have both effective enforcement mechanisms and access to avenues for seeking redress. Ensuring that pregnant employees and new mothers are aware of their rights and have the means to assert them can deter discriminatory practices and provide redress in cases of discrimination.
Race
Including race as a protected characteristic within the Equality Act (2010) framework indicates an understanding of combating prejudice against certain groups and promoting fairness across workplaces. Additionally, the Act’s stipulations on non-discriminatory conduct during recruitment and promoting fairness in career advancements have played a key role in resolving both direct and indirect forms of racial inequality. Through cases like Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, courts have contributed to shaping how we interpret and apply racial discrimination provisions. The courts have quickly recognized that race is a thorny issue and a great contributor to discrimination. Thus, by applying Section 4 of the Equality Act, it is clear that such cases can be handled adequately.
Religion or Belief
By including religion or belief as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010), the law highlights how important it is to uphold religious freedom and prevent discrimination based on one’s beliefs. To form the Act’s implementation, more awareness of religious discrimination and expanded access to legal remedies is raised.UK case law has offered insight into the interpretation and application of religious discrimination provisions as demonstrated by the case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49. That being said, uncertainties related to how one defines religious convictions and challenges associated with reconciling competing rights – including freedom of expression – warrant further inquiry to ensure robust protections are granted to people possessing an array of different spiritual or ideological beliefs.
Sex
The commitment to promoting gender equality in the workplace is reflected by including sex as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010), which recognizes the aim of tackling issues related to gender equality, such as discrimination so that people from all genders have access to fair treatment and opportunities. Through its measures to address equal pay and sex-based harassment, the Act has made important strides in promoting gender equality. While strides have been taken in bridging gender divides and enforcing equality, persistent obstacles reveal the necessity of continued evaluation (Alcock et al., 2022).
In shaping the interpretation and application of sex discrimination provisions in the UK legal system, the EU court made the decision in Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] IRLR 36, which the Act has incorporated. In this case, it was confirmed that applying retrospection on the principle of equal pay for an equivalent job or job with comparable worth is necessary. By taking on this landmark lawsuit, we finally addressed past gender pay imbalances while emphasizing just how vital it is that we strive for equity when it comes to earnings. Progress has been made since the introduction of this law to improve workplace dynamics; however, it is still evident that numerous obstacles related to gender persist in areas such as compensation fairness, balanced leadership representation, and career advancement opportunities. Despite efforts to achieve equality in compensation between men and women through equal work opportunity laws and regulations, the gender pay gap persists as an issue. Furthermore, stereotypes, biases, and workplace cultures can perpetuate gender-based discrimination and limit career progression for women.
Tackling these challenges necessitates effective enforcement of the provisions in the Act, and people must have access to legal remedies and support when fighting against sex-based bias in the workplace. By raising awareness about the sex-discrimination policies and imparting education on gender-equality laws, one could dynamically work towards preventing any kind of bias. A constant effort to evaluate and improve is needed to eliminate gender disparities at work. Implementing inclusion initiatives and monitoring gender-based payment discrepancies helps narrow the gap between genders in terms of fair compensation. Moreover, organizations can profit from putting into practice policies and approaches that back up life-work equilibrium together, along with adaptable job routines coupled with provisions for maternal or paternal absences, which aim at handling the singular challenges faced by people of diverse genders (Alcock et al., 2022).
Sexual Orientation
A significant milestone towards promoting fairness and tackling discrimination suffered by LGB persons in the UK was achieved with the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act, and this recognition is crucial in ensuring that all individuals are free from discriminatory practices. The importance of the Act cannot be overstated as it provides channels for redress and opposition to discriminatory practices, and the evolution of sexual orientation rights has been dramatically shaped by case laws in the UK. The Act of denying bed and breakfast services to gay couples based on one’s religious beliefs has been deemed directly discriminatory by the highest court in Bull vs Hall, alluded to earlier in this paper. This case highlighted the importance of protecting LGB individuals from discrimination and ensuring equal access to goods and services.
While progress has been achieved in protecting the rights of individuals with different sexual orientations through this Act, there are still limits. Ensuring recognition and support for individuals with non-binary or fluid sexual identities should be a priority. While primarily concerned with providing protection for LGB individuals under the Act, there are still issues surrounding legal coverage that may affect those outside of this group, such as non-binary or gender-fluid persons (Kirton & Greene, 2021).
Conclusion
The importance of the Equality Act (2010) for combating discrimination and promoting equality within UK employment law cannot be overstated, as the Act demonstrates its dedication towards protecting individuals from unjust practices by acknowledging various attributes such as gender reassignment and pregnancy and maternity rights. That said, a significant assessment of each safeguarded trait unveils limitations and emerging challenges that necessitate attention. Despite making significant progress in addressing discrimination associated with these factors, the Act needs further refinement and enhancements. Ensure adequate protection from discrimination requires addressing several key areas, which include: difficulties concerning reasonable adjustments made around disability needs, problems arising from the interpretation of provisions regarding gender reassignment, the continued presence of certain limitations that allow some forms of inequality to persist, such as unequal treatment towards same-sex partners compared heterosexual married couples when it comes pension benefits; uncertainty around adopting policies that will protect expectant mothers or recent parents from negative work experiences is still a significant issue; while there has been much progress towards ending discriminatory behavior towards women at work, there remains a stubborn pay gap between male & female workers.
Achieving comprehensive prevention against discrimination at work entails an ongoing assessment of the Act’s provisions alongside heightened public attention through education and tackling emerging challenges. Effective reforms could potentially expand the clarification of legal fights, enforce more robust mechanisms for their implementation, promote the importance of including minorities, and challenge the common yet problematic attitudes that exist within SocietySociety. Achieving a more balanced and inclusive society requires us to recognize both the strengths as well as limitations of the Act while promoting reform through continued reflection.
List of References
Alcock, P., Haux, T., McCall, V. and May, M. eds., 2022. The student’s companion to social policy. John Wiley & Sons.
Bunbury, S. (2020). Disability in higher education–do reasonable adjustments contribute to an inclusive curriculum?. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(9), 964–979.
Cole, M. ed., (2022). Education, equality and human rights: issues of gender,’ race,’ sexuality, disability, and social class. Taylor & Francis.
Ferrer, X., van Nuenen, T., Such, J.M., Coté, M. and Criado, N., 2021. Bias and Discrimination in AI: A cross-disciplinary perspective. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 40(2), pp.72-80.
Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M., 2021. The dynamics of managing diversity and inclusion: A critical approach. Routledge.
Noon, M., 2018. Pointless diversity training: Unconscious bias, new racism, and agency. Work, employment and SocietySociety, 32(1), pp.198-209.
Sánchez-Monedero, J., Dencik, L. and Edwards, L., 2020, January. What does it mean to solve the problem of discrimination in hiring? Social, technical, and legal perspectives from the UK on automated hiring systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, accountability, and Transparency (pp. 458-468).
write