Archive for the ‘Articles On Discrimination’ Category

Discrimination in simple words can be defined as the variable behavior by one person or a group against another person or group. The behavior can be based on skin color, place or origin, traditional dress, religion, etc.

As science and technology has advanced the filed of genetics progressed too. Now it has made detection of future occurrences of diseases possible. This has scared many employees because they feel they can be discriminated based on genetic information.

Age discrimination is discriminatory behavior of an employer towards his employee based on age. This type of discrimination may affect an employee at times of employment, job hopping, promotion, firing, etc. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 is meant to protect employees in federally aided or federal organization against age discrimination.

There is another act protecting age discrimination in employment called the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967). This act has been mentioned in Chapter-14, Title-29 US Code. This act specifically prevents discrimination of employees above the age of 40. This law has implemented a unified retirement age in all sectors. This act is applicable on employers employing more than 20 employees.

Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) has further amended the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This act specifically prohibits denying aged employees from worker benefits prevalent in office.

There has been a lawsuit regarding retaliatory action by the employer for reporting age discrimination. The case took place in US Supreme court in 2008 Gomez- Perez versus Potter. There are some common remedies included in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. These include:

1) Reinstatement
2) Damages in case circumstances aren’t in favor of reinstatement
3) Payback for employee.

However, this doesn’t prohibit an employer to discipline an employee for a good cause. There should be reasonable other factors associated with age. If there are voluntary early retirement incentives then filing age discrimination lawsuit might prove futile.

There are several other factors that need to be evaluated by an age discrimination lawyer. An age discrimination lawyer is basically an overall specialist in US labor law. There are several types of complicated defense measures that can be taken up by an employer. As a result, if you feel that you have been discriminated based on your age in Ohio, contact an Ohio Age Discrimination Lawyer. Ohio has the 4th best conducive business climate; this doesn’t imply absence of discrimination law.

Ashley Smith, a contributor to legal journals, offers helpful tips on the right approach to legal issues, like guiding you to about age discrimination law. In case you require an advice from Ohio Age Discrimination Lawyer on any age discrimination related issue. He would suggest you the website of which would be of great help.

Concerning the issue of race discrimination in the UK, employers must follow truthful, objective and rational redundancy procedures lest the capacity to defend against accusations of discrimination is lost. In race discrimination cases the burden of proof is placed on the employee. If an employee will establish a prima facie case primarily based on factual data suggesting there was direct or indirect discrimination, then the burden of proof may shift to the employer. Then, unless the employer will disprove the discrimination accusation, the claimant can surely win the case. This idea is referred to as the “reverse burden of proof” and was introduced in 2003 with the introduction of section 54A as an change to the Race Relations Act 1976 (‘RRA’).

A landmark case of racial discrimination in the UK was Chagger v Abbey National % & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof provisions and also made an unprecedented compensation award of ?2.eight million.

The wording of section 54A moves the burden of proof to the employer solely in cases where there are allegations that the employer has committed an act of discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic or national origins. Discrimination on grounds of colour is not mentioned by the RRA 1976. In 2008, The Employment Charm Tribunal (EAT) thought of if Mr Chagger, the claimant in the Chagger v Abbey National percent & Hopkins case of 2006, was due the profit of the burden of proof being reversed, despite having remarked discrimination on the basis of color in his evidence before the Employment Tribunal.

The EAT’s transcript of proceedings shows that Abbey National, part of the Banco Santander Group, utilized Balbinder Chagger, of Indian origin, as a Trading Risk Controller, reporting into Nigel Hopkins. He earned a considerable quantity, around ?a hundred,000 per year. In 2006, Abbey National swiftly dismissed Mr Chagger ostensibly for reasons of redundancy, in an exceedingly scenario where the pool of choice was he and a white feminine colleague. Abbey National selected Mr Chagger for dismissal primarily based on criteria on which Mr Chagger scored lower as compared along with his white feminine colleague. Before his dismissal, Abbey failed to provide Mr Chagger with a ‘step one’ letter as needed under the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures. Consultations, but, were held with Mr Chagger. Within the run-up to his dismissal Abbey awarded Mr Chagger a performance connected bonus that was significantly lower than the previous year’s amount. Mr Chagger tried to resolve the issues surrounding his dismissal and bonus directly with Abbey National and his manager, Mr Hopkins, through the company’s internal complaints and grievance procedures. However, his issues were dismissed out of hand. He then began legal action on the idea of race discrimination and unfair dismissal against Abbey National and Mr Hopkins.

The Employment Tribunal found, amongst different things, that Mr Chagger had been unfairly dismissed and that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against him on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal asserted that the dismissal was unfair providing Abbey National failed to follow the relevant statutory procedures and as a result of the redundancy exercise had been a pre-determined arrange to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Chagger had been picked on unfairly and the criteria used were too irrational, subjective and not measurable.

The dismissal was stained with race discrimination UK. The Tribunal mentioned a plethora of proof supporting this notion like the unfair redundancy method itself and Mr Chagger’s victimisation in it; the shortage of equal opportunities coaching for those utilized in senior and middle management at Abbey; Abbey National’s failure to reply to Mr Chagger’s race discrimination questionnaire and failure to look at the relevant code of practice. So, the Tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof provisions in section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976. Abbey National and Mr Hopkins were unable to convince the Tribunal that their reasons for their shoddy treatment of Mr Chagger were not a matter of race discrimination UK.

The Tribunal ordered Abbey to re-instate Mr Chagger so as to remedy its wrongdoing. Abbey, however, refused to suits the Tribunal’s order. The Tribunal then ordered Abbey to pay Mr Chagger the unprecedented ?2.eight million in compensation for his loss on the idea that he had not been re-instated. This figure was primarily based on an estimate of loss of earnings for the remainder of his career.

Abbey National and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Charm Tribunal (EAT) against the decision of race discrimination and the number of the compensation award.

Basically, almost about Mr Chagger’s plea, the EAT said it had been clear that the discrimination carried out was primarily based on race, color and ethnic or national grounds. Once the relevant case law had been reviewed and therefore the wording of the EU Directive examined, the EAT said it had been inconceivable that the Race Equality Directive wasn’t proposed to use to discrimination on grounds of colour. Whereas it had been doable to discriminate on the grounds of race or ethnic origin without discrimination on the ground of color, the reverse was not therefore; discrimination on the ground of color that may not additionally properly be characterised as discrimination on the ground of race and/or ethnic origin was inconceivable. So, the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s findings of race discrimination and Abbey National’s appeal on the race discrimination verdict failed.

Abbey National’s appeal on the unprecedented size of the compensation award was accepted and the EAT sent back (‘remitted’) the compensation to the first Employment Tribunal for reconsideration on the idea of the likelihood of Mr Chagger leaving Abbey National’s employment in any event.

Jeff Patterson has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Mens Issues, you can also check out his latest website about

Braun Electric Toothbrush Which reviews and lists the best
Braun Power Toothbrush

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the anti-discrimination laws, per the Federal Civil Rights Act, originally passed in 1964. The EEOC is a government agency that has the power to analyze charges and claims regarding unlawful discrimination cases, as well as reach initial judgments in these matters.
The following are the steps which you will need to take in order to file your EEOC charge

First, you should contact your state’s civil rights commission and see if they can be of any assistance. Their response will usually be dependent upon the specific regulations in your state.
The statute of limitations is extremely short compared to other claims, and you must file your claim within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.
You may file your charge online, by telephone, or in person at the EEOC office nearest to where you live.  You will usually find an office open in most large cities.
Your claim, or charge must include your nae, address, and telephone number.  You should also furnish detail about your employer, the discrimination alleged and a provide as much detail as possible.

Other points to consider when filing an EEOC claim or charge:

Be clear and concise when describing he alleged discriminatory events and acts. 
Attach any documents required to prove your complaint.
Provide witness information if at all possible.
You can stay anonymous by not feeling your name in the complaint, but this is not recommended and may result in your charge being denied.

Post charge procedures:

Once your charge has been filed, the EEOC will begin the investigation process with the information which you have provided. They will contact the parties listed in the charge, analyze any documents and materials as well as gather information from third parties to investigate your charge.
During the investigation, your employer is prohibited from taking any action against you. This could be considered retaliation for filing the charge, and may result i additional charges and penalties.

Resolving your charge:

In some instances, where the EEOC finds merit to the charges, they may attempt to mediate with all parties in order to reach an mutually agreed settlement.
In other cases, the EEOC may find for the charging party, and allow you to pursue your claim in court, or pursue the matter for you.
If they do not find that the facts warrant a finding of discrimination, they will then inform you of their decision & will issue you a “right to sue” letter.  You will then have 90 days to file a lawsuit in Federal Court.

Ultimately, Federal and State discrimination laws are somewhat complex, and it would probably be in your best interest to contact an attorney who is experienced in these matters. 

Harry S. Bernstein has been representing discrimination claimants as an experienced Cleveland attorney for several years. Please visit our Cleveland attorney website at for more information on this topic.

In the UK discrimination against people in providing services or in the course of business is outlawed by the Equality Act 2010. This includes the provision of accommodation, either to a tenant under a lease, or to a lodger under a licence of occupation.

Discrimination can be either direct or indirect:

Direct Discrimination
Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 describes direct discrimination as treating any person less favourably than another because of some “protected characteristic” which the person has. The list of protected characteristics in the Act includes; age, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation, race, colour, and nationality.

Indirect Discrimination
Indirect discrimination in relation to tenancies, is the act of attaching some particular condition or requirement to a tenancy which, whilst it does not appear discriminatory at first glance, has a discriminatory affect because it will have a disproportionate impact on people with a particular protected characteristic.

An example could be where a landlord refuses to allow pets. This requirement may not be seen as discriminatory, but it could be considered as disability discrimination because it would prevent people who are blind and require the aid of a guide dog from taking the tenancy. In these cases the landlord must alter or waive the condition or requirement in order to accommodate the protected characteristic.

Grounds for Discrimination
Actions which have the potential to be discriminatory may be lawful if it can be proven that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, in the example above where a landlord lets a property subject to a condition that no animals are permitted, this is indirectly discriminatory against blind people, but may be allowable if there is a genuine health and safety reason for prohibiting guide dogs, or if the landlord is required to observe restrictive covenants which are attached to the property.

Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments for Disability
Disability discrimination is the main type of discrimination which is most likely to be relevant to landlords. This is an area in which it is very easy for people who are not well informed to discriminate inadvertently and accidentally by not considering the needs and requirements of disabled people.

Under section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled tenants where an obstacle places them at a substantial disadvantage. This may include installing ramp access or other alterations to a property. The landlord would not usually be responsible for making extensive disabled access modifications to the property, but he may have to alter the terms of the tenancy agreement to allow the tenant to make these modifications.

I am a legal writer covering advice on topics of law, including discrimination in tenancies, for further text and similar works visit landlord law or contact a solicitor today.

For more legal advice and information, and free legal resources visit

The most recent case of Abbey National plc. Fair brother V [2007] if the employee worked Account Manager since March 1998. The employee suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which at the time he applied for a job has not been informed by the employer, but is clear when he took office. Since the beginning of his work, had a good relationship with colleagues. The situation changed in 2002 when two of his colleagues have begun to treat him and another employee, R, unfavorably. Since then he has been forced to its provocations of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and low activity level, mainly because of its shock. R has been abused by her experience with the amount of work and R and the employee has been sidelined. Weakened to the point where two colleagues unlawful for informational purposes only employee e-mail, even if they are all in the same office.
A week after a particularly stressful period, the employee was released July 25, 2003. He informed the Regional Director, N, and the problems that led to his departure, and began to investigate the complaint. Both men agreed that they had acted in abuse of the employee during the week, then two results No excuses this study was presented to the employee, and has promised to have a cup of tea and two of his colleagues to try to resolve their disputes. He also said that he could face a disciplinary process for 25, August 13, wrote a letter describing the events that led to his departure, but the letter did not relate to his obsessive-compulsive disorder.
After a meeting with a member of the HRC employer resources department, F, it was decided that a full investigation into the events during the week of July 21, 2003, are implemented. One month after the meeting, asked the officer that the events that preceded this week, and a study. The second application was refused by the employer. A complaint was then held to discuss allegations that the employee had been bullied at work, and that N did not conduct the preliminary investigation proper. These requests were rejected, prompting the employee to appeal the decision.
The study was conducted and all complaints that have been used and February 9, 2004, all appeals were rejected. Since then, 7 July 2004, resigned because his employer had not made a claim for a reasonable conclusion. The employee filed a complaint to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal because it was discriminated against because of their condition. The Court stated that it had been unfairly dismissed because the appeal process for a long period, the employer had several shortcomings which mean that the employer had acted in a way that has damaged the trust between him and the employee.
The employee based on discrimination remained on the ground that the treatment he received from his colleagues had been damaging and there was no distinction between the treatment she received and the treatment received by R. The employer appealed. The employer argued that the court committed an unfair dismissal based on alleged procedural errors in the complaint.
They argued that: –
* The court did not consider whether the grievance procedure was within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer.
* The tribunal had erred in limiting its consideration of whether the employee has received treatment.
* The court should have considered whether the employee was treated less favorably.
* It was considered that the court erred in considering whether the employers conduct falls within the range of reasonable responses available during the investigation of employee complaints.
* The court based its decision on failure in the initial phase of the grievance procedure and the fact that these defects have been fixed as the investigation progressed, it was still a mistake to conclude that the employer had unfairly dismissed employee.

Humphreys & Co. with Solicitors UK has a team of dedicated, experienced, energetic and expert team of lawyers. Humphreys & Co. is a well known for its expert mortgage solicitors providing exceptional services and also helps for employment tribunal

For Lambrou v Cyprus Airways Ltd [2007]concerned an employee who alleged that he was constructively unfairly dismissed.  The employee was hired by Cypriar Tours Ltd (“Cypriar”), which was a subsidiary of the employer. The worker has been hired as a computer operator on January 23, 1989. However, from May 1, 2003, he also worked for the employer. In June 2004 all employees were notified that within three to four months Cyprian will cease all activity. The employee had not received his written work for the Employment, requested for the employer contract. The manager informed written account; the employee would be transferred to their payroll on 1 October. On September 27, staff sent an e-mail seeking clarification from the transfer officer. After learning that his P45 was issued for inter company purposes, the employee requested for a copy. His application was rejected at first, but was sent on 24 September.

The employer appealed. An issue arose as to whether the employee had failed to present a grievance in respect of the constructive unfair dismissal as required by the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.The appeal would be allowed.It was held that dismissal claims were not subject to the requirement that they went through a grievance unless they were for constructive dismissal. What was required to be presented as a grievance was the same complaint as the employee sought to have determined before the tribunal. In this case, the very limited basis upon which the claim had been allowed to go forward by the tribunal had been incorrect. The only basis on which the claimant had got through the gateway to a hearing of his constructive unfair dismissal claim was reliance upon the emails. The complaint sought to be determined before the tribunal was that the employer had deemed the employee’s contract not to be binding.

In the earlier emails there had been mention of the dispute about the precise terms and conditions of employment tribunals. However, in those earlier emails there had been no indication that the employee regarded his contract as void or that he would take steps to leave. It followed therefore that that was not the same complaint as was presented to the tribunal and thus it had been wrong to allow that part of the case to go forward.

Generally, Harassment at work is any unwelcome, Discrimination conduct in the workplace that no reasonable employee should have to endure. Employment Tribunals are tribunal non-departmental public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland which have statutory jurisdiction to hear many kinds of disputes between employers and employees.

According to employment laws in the U.S, it is the responsibility of employers to provide workplace free of harassment, discrimination, and other forms of unfair treatment. It should be the goal of every employer to create an atmosphere of trust and fairness for each and every employee. If a person suffers discrimination on the basis of race, sexual preference, political views, or gender, he or she may be able to pursue legal action against his or her employer.

When it comes to discrimination, many people are aware of the role that racial discrimination has played in our society. Many employers are aware of the serious consequences of racial discrimination and have adopted policies to make sure that assessments and decisions are made in the fairest possible way for people of all races.

Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the fact that discrimination on the basis of gender also exists in modern workplaces. There have been countless complaints of decisions made in the workplace that are not based on the performance of the individual, but rather by the gender of the employee. In addition, some businesses and industries have been accused of unfair hiring practices by denying applicants of a certain gender positions on the workforce solely on the gender of the applicant.

It is against the law for employers to make decisions regarding the hiring, firing, promotion, and pay of employees based on their gender. Employers should be familiar with the requirements of the law and should be able to justify decisions with solid information and facts if questioned.

Persons in charge of hiring for companies, for example, should make sure to consider the quality of the applicant’s resume and previous work experience. It is not legal to discriminate against qualified applicants based on the gender of the individual, and decisions should be made based on the person’s work experience, education, and abilities.

Promotions and pay raises should be given fairly to employees based on their performance on the job. If a person is denied promotion because they are male or female, they may have grounds to pursue legal action. Employers should be aware of such concerns and should make sure to award bonuses, raises, and titles to persons who actually earn the honors given to them.

If you would like to know more about gender discrimination in the workplace, visit the website of the San Antonio employment lawyers of Melton & Kumler, LLP.

Joseph Devine