E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Government ordered to amend sex equality laws
Times Online
12 March 2007
Hundreds of thousands of women could benefit from better working conditions after a High Court judge ordered the Government to improve the UK’s sexual equality laws.
In a landmark case brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), the judge ruled that the Government had failed to comply with a European Union directive on sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination.
Mr Justice Burton told the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for equal treatment issues, that it has seven days to either take steps to amend the current regulations or appeal against this morning’s decision.
He said “clarity and certainty and comprehensibility” were needed in sexual equality rules “by employees and employers alike.”
The case took the form of a judicial review, a process through which interested parties can question Government legislation. The EOC successfully challenged the 2005 Employment Equality Regulations, arguing that they were incompatible with the European Equal Treatment Directive.
The judge agreed with the EOC’s argument that the 2005 regulations, which amended the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, contained substantial inadequacies and defined harassment too narrowly. The result, the judge accepted, was that they fell short of the EU directive’s intention, to ensure women were free from “any unwanted conduct related to their sex” in the workplace.
Arguing against the current legislation, lawyers for the EOC used the example that the laws do not protect women who are harassed by their employer’s clients or customers - even if the employer is aware of the issue. It said today’s ruling was especially beneficial to the 670,000 women employed in the hotel and restaurant industries, where it claims sexual harassment by customers is rife.
Arpita Dutt, an employment partner at Russell Jones & Walker, said: “This is a very welcome decision exposing deficiencies in the present sex discrimination legislation.
“Hopefully, this will lead to the Government introducing a swift and clear amendment to the legislation therefore increasing the protection for female workers who experience harassment in the workplace.”
However Hazel Oliver, an employment partner at Lewis Silkin, said that although the ruling was “potentially very good news for women, the Government is very likely to appeal and so nothing will change just yet.”
If the Government does amend its legislation, then restaurant, hotel and other workers harassed by members of the public may be able to sue their employer for compensation.
Ms Oliver said that some workers may be tempted to launch such claims on the back of today's judgment although they would be unlikely to be considered before any appeal was decided.
Responding to separate arguments from the EOC, the judge also accepted that the current rules contain a lack of clarity over rights to maternity leave as well as uncertainty over whether women who are not consulted regarding changes to their jobs while on leave are protected by UK law.
Mr Justice Burton agreed with the EOC’s argument that women occupied a special position during pregnancy and maternity leave that, in certain circumstances, required them to have special protection.
A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said: “This Government remains committed to ending discrimination against women, whether that is in the form of sexual harassment or pregnancy discrimination.
“This is a case about the technical interpretation of regulations and the requirements of EU law and we will be studying the ruling carefully before deciding on the appropriate way forward.”
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1502802.ece