Please DO EXPLAIN..... Whatever you have posted appears bizarre... and ghastly... Do share your own experiences in the light of your posting; that would be relevant and useful for members.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1446From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You seem to have some thoughts in your mind, but you have not been able to put them together and present them in an organized manner. You have also put them in pieces on a thread. It seems you want to write an article.
I suggest, first, give proper thought to the structure of your article. Type it in a Word format. Read it again and again, and refine it until your thoughts are properly presented. Then, post it in the 'Articles' section of citehr, not as a thread.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I suggest, first, give proper thought to the structure of your article. Type it in a Word format. Read it again and again, and refine it until your thoughts are properly presented. Then, post it in the 'Articles' section of citehr, not as a thread.
Thanks & Regards
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From the article:
"What would have been a landmark federal gender-discrimination trial turned into a landmark settlement yesterday when Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million just before opening arguments were set to begin.
The giant investment house faced charges from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it had discriminated against women on promotions and pay as far back as 1995. The settlement means that Morgan Stanley neither denies nor admits guilt. However, the brokerage will have to take measures to prevent sexual discrimination, a practice that critics have said pervades the culture of Wall Street, where fewer than one in five top-level managing director jobs are held by women.
The settlement comes amid a long history of harassment allegations on Wall Street by women, who have complained about the locker-room atmosphere at more than a few investment firms. Other major brokerages that have settled harassment cases include Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. The latter was involved in a notorious 1996 Garden City case known as the "boom-boom room." A lawsuit alleged male workers drank, propositioned, and groped female co-workers, to whom they referred in obscene terms. Women from other Smith Barney offices nationwide joined the lawsuit, eventually covering about 23,000 employees and resulting in a $100 million settlement."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"What would have been a landmark federal gender-discrimination trial turned into a landmark settlement yesterday when Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million just before opening arguments were set to begin.
The giant investment house faced charges from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it had discriminated against women on promotions and pay as far back as 1995. The settlement means that Morgan Stanley neither denies nor admits guilt. However, the brokerage will have to take measures to prevent sexual discrimination, a practice that critics have said pervades the culture of Wall Street, where fewer than one in five top-level managing director jobs are held by women.
The settlement comes amid a long history of harassment allegations on Wall Street by women, who have complained about the locker-room atmosphere at more than a few investment firms. Other major brokerages that have settled harassment cases include Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. The latter was involved in a notorious 1996 Garden City case known as the "boom-boom room." A lawsuit alleged male workers drank, propositioned, and groped female co-workers, to whom they referred in obscene terms. Women from other Smith Barney offices nationwide joined the lawsuit, eventually covering about 23,000 employees and resulting in a $100 million settlement."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Understand sex discrimination legislation.
Sex discrimination against employees or job applicants can result in employment tribunal claims for unlimited compensation. Both employers and individuals can be held liable. Discrimination can also result in bad publicity, poor morale, and damaged business potential where, for example, promotion is granted on the basis of sex rather than ability.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) covers England, Scotland, and Wales and applies to both men and women. It makes sex discrimination unlawful and prohibits the following:
- discrimination on the grounds of gender
- discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment
- discrimination against married persons
- victimization
Direct sex discrimination Direct discrimination is when one person is treated less favorably than another on the grounds of their sex.
Sexual harassment is a form of direct discrimination. The SDA does not define harassment, but a European Commission code of practice defines it as "unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of men and women at work. This can include unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct". Harassment is defined under the Harassment Act 1997.
Under the Equal Pay Act 1970, pay and conditions should not differ for men and women of a similar standing in the workplace.
Victimization Many may be deterred from lodging a sex discrimination complaint for fear that they may be victimized by their employer. It is unlawful for an employer to victimize a person because they have brought a discrimination claim, or given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
Indirect sex discrimination Indirect discrimination is less obvious and usually inadvertent. It occurs where an employer applies a requirement or policy, which appears to have nothing to do with gender but in practice has effects that disadvantage one sex. For example, a requirement for all job applicants to be over six feet tall indirectly discriminates against women. To be considered discrimination it must be proved that the condition in question:
- is applied equally to both sexes
- limits the proportion of one sex who comply compared with the other
- disadvantages an individual
- cannot be objectively justified
Exceptions Employers are exempt where single-sex training is given to equip men or women with skills in an area where their gender is under-represented. This is known as positive action. Positive discrimination is otherwise unlawful in the UK.
The SDA does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation but European law requires that EU countries must implement legislation banning such discrimination by 2 December 2003.
Complaints Sex discrimination and equal pay claims are brought in employment tribunals. Sex discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the discrimination taking place.
There is no minimum length of continuous employment required to bring these claims or no financial limit to sex discrimination compensation.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sex discrimination against employees or job applicants can result in employment tribunal claims for unlimited compensation. Both employers and individuals can be held liable. Discrimination can also result in bad publicity, poor morale, and damaged business potential where, for example, promotion is granted on the basis of sex rather than ability.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) covers England, Scotland, and Wales and applies to both men and women. It makes sex discrimination unlawful and prohibits the following:
- discrimination on the grounds of gender
- discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment
- discrimination against married persons
- victimization
Direct sex discrimination Direct discrimination is when one person is treated less favorably than another on the grounds of their sex.
Sexual harassment is a form of direct discrimination. The SDA does not define harassment, but a European Commission code of practice defines it as "unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of men and women at work. This can include unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct". Harassment is defined under the Harassment Act 1997.
Under the Equal Pay Act 1970, pay and conditions should not differ for men and women of a similar standing in the workplace.
Victimization Many may be deterred from lodging a sex discrimination complaint for fear that they may be victimized by their employer. It is unlawful for an employer to victimize a person because they have brought a discrimination claim, or given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
Indirect sex discrimination Indirect discrimination is less obvious and usually inadvertent. It occurs where an employer applies a requirement or policy, which appears to have nothing to do with gender but in practice has effects that disadvantage one sex. For example, a requirement for all job applicants to be over six feet tall indirectly discriminates against women. To be considered discrimination it must be proved that the condition in question:
- is applied equally to both sexes
- limits the proportion of one sex who comply compared with the other
- disadvantages an individual
- cannot be objectively justified
Exceptions Employers are exempt where single-sex training is given to equip men or women with skills in an area where their gender is under-represented. This is known as positive action. Positive discrimination is otherwise unlawful in the UK.
The SDA does not prohibit discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation but European law requires that EU countries must implement legislation banning such discrimination by 2 December 2003.
Complaints Sex discrimination and equal pay claims are brought in employment tribunals. Sex discrimination claims must be brought within three months of the discrimination taking place.
There is no minimum length of continuous employment required to bring these claims or no financial limit to sex discrimination compensation.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Summary of the Law on SEX DISCRIMINATION
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status in employment, education, transport, and the provision of goods and services. This booklet is solely concerned with the employment aspects of the SDA.
DIRECT DISCRIMINATION, INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION, VICTIMISATION, HARASSMENT, TRIBUNAL CLAIMS, REMEDIES
Who does the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) apply to and when?
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) applies to all discrimination in the workplace, such as, selection for a job, training, promotion, work practices, dismissal, or any other disadvantage such as sexual harassment. If a worker is discriminated against in their contractual terms of employment, then the Equal Pay Act applies.
Whilst this booklet refers to women in the majority of examples, it should be noted that the law applies equally to both men and women.
Who is liable?
Responsibility for sex discrimination usually lies with the employer, but if another employee or worker is found to have discriminated, then the employer will be "vicariously" liable for them as well.
This covers not only incidents of discrimination occurring in the actual workplace but may also extend to out-of-work activities such as Christmas parties and drinks in the pub after work. If the alleged discrimination is about the conduct of another employee, then it’s a good idea to name them on the Tribunal application as well as the employer.
What is direct sex discrimination?
Direct sex discrimination is when an employer treats a woman less favorably than a man because of her sex or marital status. It is also direct discrimination to treat a woman less favorably because she is pregnant or has taken maternity leave. This includes a pregnancy-related illness.
The employee bringing the claim has to make a comparison between how she was treated and how a man (either actual or hypothetical) would have been treated, except for cases of alleged pregnancy and maternity discrimination when a comparator is not required. It is irrelevant whether or not the employer intended to discriminate against them.
Once the person has shown that the employer did discriminate against them directly, employers cannot offer a defense as there is none for these claims.
The following situations and examples could give rise to a claim for direct discrimination:
- In an interview for a job, the employer only asks female applicants about their domestic circumstances
- A man with inferior qualifications and/or less experience than a woman is appointed to the job or the promotion for which they both applied
- A woman is told that she would not be considered for a job because it is "dirty work" or because there is "a lack of decent toilet facilities"
- A woman who takes time off for pregnancy or maternity leave is demoted when she returns to work
- A woman is not encouraged to meet clients or invited to social events to meet them. Instead, a mainly male group is.
What is indirect sex discrimination?
Indirect discrimination applies to policies and practices which, in reality, disadvantage one gender considerably more than another although on the face of it, they seem to apply to both sexes equally. For example, a requirement to work full time might be more of a bar for women than men.
To prove indirect discrimination, Tribunals have to consider four questions:
- Has the employer imposed a provision, criterion, or practice?
- Does it put women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men?
- Does it disadvantage that woman?
- Can the employer show that the provision, criterion, or practice is proportionate to the aim they are trying to achieve?
Employers can defend indirect discrimination, but they have to show that the provision, criterion, or practice:
- Can be objectively justified on grounds other than sex
- Corresponds to a real need on the part of the employer
- Is appropriate to meeting that need
- Is necessary to meet that need
Despite this clear and fairly stringent test, the courts have set out further tests, including the requirement to balance the needs of the employer and employee. These tests are not always easy to reconcile, and anyone wanting to bring a claim will need specialist advice.
Examples of indirect discrimination are:
- Age bars, which can indirectly discriminate against women who often have taken time out from work to bring up children and therefore may acquire their qualifications later than men
- Any benefit resulting from length of service may work against women who have taken time out from work to bring up their children
- Mobility clauses may discriminate. Often, women are less able to relocate than men because of their family commitments or a reliance on their partner's income as the primary wage earner
- Height or weight requirements which favor men rather than women
- Work that requires unsocial hours or a requirement to work full time may work against women with childcare commitments
What is harassment?
There are three grounds that constitute unlawful harassment under the Act:
The first is when an individual is subjected to unwanted conduct relating to their sex that has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Even if that individual is not the butt of the unwanted conduct but feels that their dignity has been violated or that an offensive environment has been created as a result, they are also protected by the legislation.
The second is when someone engages in unwanted verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
The third is when someone treats the woman less favorably because she rejected the unwanted conduct. "Conduct" is only regarded as harassment when all the circumstances are taken into account (including the perception of the woman at the receiving end of it) and if it is reasonable to conclude that it could have had that effect.
Examples of sexual harassment include the following:
- Physical harassment
- Unwanted sexual comments or personal comments about a woman's appearance
- Non-verbal harassment such as unwanted gestures or displays of pornographic pictures
The victim does not have to demonstrate any financial or other specific loss, such as a threat of dismissal. It is enough that her working environment has become intimidating, hostile, or offensive.
In one case, a school laboratory assistant was subjected to constant suggestive remarks and conduct by two male colleagues as part of a campaign to persuade her to leave.
The Tribunal decided that the woman did not have to produce evidence of a man having been treated differently, since the treatment that she received was clearly discriminatory by reason of its sexual character.
Single incidents can constitute harassment, though generally speaking, a one-off incident would have to be more serious.
The law also says that employers who fail to take reasonably practical steps to protect employees from harassment by someone else if they knew it had happened on at least two other occasions will be liable for those acts.
What is victimisation?
Some women may be deterred from exercising their rights under the SDA or from supporting others who wish to exercise their rights in case they are victimized by their employer.
The Act guards against this by making it unlawful for an employer to victimize an individual because she has brought a discrimination claim, given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
To succeed in a victimization case, the person has to show that they were treated less favorably than someone who had not taken any of these steps, and that their treatment was because they had pursued a discrimination case, had given evidence, or had made allegations of discrimination.
Employers can defend a complaint of discrimination if they can show that they took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the discrimination occurring. It is rare for employers to succeed with this defense. But even if they do, the person who feels they have been victimized can pursue a claim against the individual employee.
Are there any exceptions?
There are three main circumstances when the Act does not provide protection against discrimination:
- The genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
- Positive action
- Employment for the purposes of religion
Genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
Employers are allowed to discriminate under the Act when a person's sex is a "genuine occupational qualification" (GOQ) for the job. For instance, if the job needs either a man or a woman for reasons of authenticity, perhaps for a job as an actor or a model.
Or, for reasons of decency or privacy, either a man or a woman may be needed if the job involves physical contact or people may be undressing (say, in a changing room). Or the job may involve providing personal services such as rape counselors.
A GOQ exception will not apply if an employer already has enough staff of the other sex who could take on the duties of the job without too much inconvenience.
Positive action
Positive action means giving preferential treatment to an individual or group of people to prevent or compensate for past disadvantages suffered by that individual or group. It is not the same as positive discrimination, which involves treating people more favorably on grounds of sex and is unlawful.
The SDA states that employers can:
- provide training to people of a particular sex which would fit them for particular work if in the preceding 12 months there were none (or very few) of them doing that sort of work, or
- run a discriminatory recruitment campaign to encourage members of a particular sex to apply for certain kinds of work, as long as there were none (or very few of them) doing that particular kind of work in the preceding 12 months
Employment for the purposes of religion
Sex discrimination is also lawful in relation to employment for the purposes of an organized religion, where employment is limited to one sex so as to comply with "the doctrines of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers."
This exemption is limited effectively to employment by religious organizations such as churches or mosques.
Is it easy to prove a claim?
Proving sex discrimination is not straightforward. A woman complaining of discrimination has to prove, on the balance of
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sex and marital status in employment, education, transport, and the provision of goods and services. This booklet is solely concerned with the employment aspects of the SDA.
DIRECT DISCRIMINATION, INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION, VICTIMISATION, HARASSMENT, TRIBUNAL CLAIMS, REMEDIES
Who does the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) apply to and when?
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) applies to all discrimination in the workplace, such as, selection for a job, training, promotion, work practices, dismissal, or any other disadvantage such as sexual harassment. If a worker is discriminated against in their contractual terms of employment, then the Equal Pay Act applies.
Whilst this booklet refers to women in the majority of examples, it should be noted that the law applies equally to both men and women.
Who is liable?
Responsibility for sex discrimination usually lies with the employer, but if another employee or worker is found to have discriminated, then the employer will be "vicariously" liable for them as well.
This covers not only incidents of discrimination occurring in the actual workplace but may also extend to out-of-work activities such as Christmas parties and drinks in the pub after work. If the alleged discrimination is about the conduct of another employee, then it’s a good idea to name them on the Tribunal application as well as the employer.
What is direct sex discrimination?
Direct sex discrimination is when an employer treats a woman less favorably than a man because of her sex or marital status. It is also direct discrimination to treat a woman less favorably because she is pregnant or has taken maternity leave. This includes a pregnancy-related illness.
The employee bringing the claim has to make a comparison between how she was treated and how a man (either actual or hypothetical) would have been treated, except for cases of alleged pregnancy and maternity discrimination when a comparator is not required. It is irrelevant whether or not the employer intended to discriminate against them.
Once the person has shown that the employer did discriminate against them directly, employers cannot offer a defense as there is none for these claims.
The following situations and examples could give rise to a claim for direct discrimination:
- In an interview for a job, the employer only asks female applicants about their domestic circumstances
- A man with inferior qualifications and/or less experience than a woman is appointed to the job or the promotion for which they both applied
- A woman is told that she would not be considered for a job because it is "dirty work" or because there is "a lack of decent toilet facilities"
- A woman who takes time off for pregnancy or maternity leave is demoted when she returns to work
- A woman is not encouraged to meet clients or invited to social events to meet them. Instead, a mainly male group is.
What is indirect sex discrimination?
Indirect discrimination applies to policies and practices which, in reality, disadvantage one gender considerably more than another although on the face of it, they seem to apply to both sexes equally. For example, a requirement to work full time might be more of a bar for women than men.
To prove indirect discrimination, Tribunals have to consider four questions:
- Has the employer imposed a provision, criterion, or practice?
- Does it put women at a particular disadvantage when compared with men?
- Does it disadvantage that woman?
- Can the employer show that the provision, criterion, or practice is proportionate to the aim they are trying to achieve?
Employers can defend indirect discrimination, but they have to show that the provision, criterion, or practice:
- Can be objectively justified on grounds other than sex
- Corresponds to a real need on the part of the employer
- Is appropriate to meeting that need
- Is necessary to meet that need
Despite this clear and fairly stringent test, the courts have set out further tests, including the requirement to balance the needs of the employer and employee. These tests are not always easy to reconcile, and anyone wanting to bring a claim will need specialist advice.
Examples of indirect discrimination are:
- Age bars, which can indirectly discriminate against women who often have taken time out from work to bring up children and therefore may acquire their qualifications later than men
- Any benefit resulting from length of service may work against women who have taken time out from work to bring up their children
- Mobility clauses may discriminate. Often, women are less able to relocate than men because of their family commitments or a reliance on their partner's income as the primary wage earner
- Height or weight requirements which favor men rather than women
- Work that requires unsocial hours or a requirement to work full time may work against women with childcare commitments
What is harassment?
There are three grounds that constitute unlawful harassment under the Act:
The first is when an individual is subjected to unwanted conduct relating to their sex that has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. Even if that individual is not the butt of the unwanted conduct but feels that their dignity has been violated or that an offensive environment has been created as a result, they are also protected by the legislation.
The second is when someone engages in unwanted verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
The third is when someone treats the woman less favorably because she rejected the unwanted conduct. "Conduct" is only regarded as harassment when all the circumstances are taken into account (including the perception of the woman at the receiving end of it) and if it is reasonable to conclude that it could have had that effect.
Examples of sexual harassment include the following:
- Physical harassment
- Unwanted sexual comments or personal comments about a woman's appearance
- Non-verbal harassment such as unwanted gestures or displays of pornographic pictures
The victim does not have to demonstrate any financial or other specific loss, such as a threat of dismissal. It is enough that her working environment has become intimidating, hostile, or offensive.
In one case, a school laboratory assistant was subjected to constant suggestive remarks and conduct by two male colleagues as part of a campaign to persuade her to leave.
The Tribunal decided that the woman did not have to produce evidence of a man having been treated differently, since the treatment that she received was clearly discriminatory by reason of its sexual character.
Single incidents can constitute harassment, though generally speaking, a one-off incident would have to be more serious.
The law also says that employers who fail to take reasonably practical steps to protect employees from harassment by someone else if they knew it had happened on at least two other occasions will be liable for those acts.
What is victimisation?
Some women may be deterred from exercising their rights under the SDA or from supporting others who wish to exercise their rights in case they are victimized by their employer.
The Act guards against this by making it unlawful for an employer to victimize an individual because she has brought a discrimination claim, given evidence in a discrimination case, or made an allegation of sex discrimination (whether it has been upheld or not).
To succeed in a victimization case, the person has to show that they were treated less favorably than someone who had not taken any of these steps, and that their treatment was because they had pursued a discrimination case, had given evidence, or had made allegations of discrimination.
Employers can defend a complaint of discrimination if they can show that they took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the discrimination occurring. It is rare for employers to succeed with this defense. But even if they do, the person who feels they have been victimized can pursue a claim against the individual employee.
Are there any exceptions?
There are three main circumstances when the Act does not provide protection against discrimination:
- The genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
- Positive action
- Employment for the purposes of religion
Genuine occupational qualification (GOQ)
Employers are allowed to discriminate under the Act when a person's sex is a "genuine occupational qualification" (GOQ) for the job. For instance, if the job needs either a man or a woman for reasons of authenticity, perhaps for a job as an actor or a model.
Or, for reasons of decency or privacy, either a man or a woman may be needed if the job involves physical contact or people may be undressing (say, in a changing room). Or the job may involve providing personal services such as rape counselors.
A GOQ exception will not apply if an employer already has enough staff of the other sex who could take on the duties of the job without too much inconvenience.
Positive action
Positive action means giving preferential treatment to an individual or group of people to prevent or compensate for past disadvantages suffered by that individual or group. It is not the same as positive discrimination, which involves treating people more favorably on grounds of sex and is unlawful.
The SDA states that employers can:
- provide training to people of a particular sex which would fit them for particular work if in the preceding 12 months there were none (or very few) of them doing that sort of work, or
- run a discriminatory recruitment campaign to encourage members of a particular sex to apply for certain kinds of work, as long as there were none (or very few of them) doing that particular kind of work in the preceding 12 months
Employment for the purposes of religion
Sex discrimination is also lawful in relation to employment for the purposes of an organized religion, where employment is limited to one sex so as to comply with "the doctrines of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers."
This exemption is limited effectively to employment by religious organizations such as churches or mosques.
Is it easy to prove a claim?
Proving sex discrimination is not straightforward. A woman complaining of discrimination has to prove, on the balance of
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.