Race relations act

Race Relations

It Matters

Race Relations: the legal context

• Race Relations Act 1976• Race Relations Amendment Act 2000• Current Race Relations guidance

Race LegislationRace Relations Act 1976 Makes it unlawful to

“discriminate against anyone on grounds of race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origin

Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 Imposes a DUTY to:

‘Promote equality of opportunity’‘Promote good race relations’

The Race Relations Act 1976 applies to the following areas:

• jobs • training • housing • the provision of goods, facilities and

services • education

It is also unlawful for public bodies to discriminate while carrying out any of their functions

There are 4 types of racial discrimination covered in law:

1. Direct discrimination 2. Indirect discrimination3. Harassment4. Victimisation

Direct discrimination is…Where someone from a particular ‘racial’ or ethnic group is treated less favourably than a person of another group would be in comparable circumstances, because they belong to that group.(there is no legal ‘justification’ for direct discrimination)

Indirect discrimination is…• Where a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ is

applied to everybody but it adversely affects one particular group

…and… • It is not justifiable to apply that condition or

practice

• BOTH conditions must be met in order to fall within the legal definition of ‘racial discrimination’

Harassment is…When someone engages in unwanted conduct that:

• Violates another person’s dignity …OR….

• Creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for another person.If this is done on grounds of race or ethnic origins then it is unlawful under the Race Relations Act

Victimisation is…

• When someone is singled out for using complaints procedures or exercising their legal rights (including making a complaint of discrimination)

Case Studies

All case studies have been taken from the old Commission for Racial Equality website.

(not now available but can be found on Equality and Human Rights Commission website)

Activity

• Read through the examples on the handout

In pairs, decide:1. Is this an example of discrimination?2. If so, what type of discrimination?

(15 mins)

Case study 1 - outcome

Direct Discrimination• The firm were given an opportunity to explain

their actions but gave no satisfactory response.

• Neither could they do so in court.

• The County Court awarded John £3,000 damages.

Case study 2 - outcomeDirect Discrimination & victimisation The Council in charge of the school settled out of court and agreed to:

• Apologise to Anthony.• Confirm their commitment to equal

opportunities and anti-racist education.• Follow correct Exclusion procedures• Pay Anthony a four-figure sum in

compensation for ‘injury to feelings’.

Case study 3 -outcome

Direct discriminationAn Employment Tribunal found that:

• The firm had racially discriminated against Claire

• The Tribunal ordered the firm to pay Claire a four-figure sum for lost earnings

Case study 4 - outcome

Direct discrimination

The firm settled out of court. They agreed to pay a four-figure sum in compensation for loss of earnings.

Case study 5Discrimination not proven

An Employment Tribunal decided Nestlé had the right to stipulate a ‘no beard’ rule on grounds of health and safety.

This decision was upheld by an Employment Appeals Tribunal

Case study 6 - outcome

Indirect discrimination

An Employment Tribunal found that the grade requirement did unfairly restrict applications from black and ethnic minority employees who were under-represented at that level.

Case study 7 - outcomeDirect discrimination

Before the case was due to be heard, the police authority made an out of court settlement, agreeing to:

• Issue an apology to Paul • Pay a four figure donation to charity of Paul's

choice• Meet with the CRE, ACAS, and the police

authority to discuss the effectiveness of their equal opportunities procedure in relation to recruitment.

Case study 8 - outcome

No discrimination

On the facts given, there is no case to answer. There is no evidence that the actions of the staff were racially motivated. They seem to have acted reasonably and there is no evidence that a white person would have been treated any differently.