Investigating Racial Discrimination: A Case Study on Equality Act

This case study examines a situation involving alleged racial discrimination in the workplace, focusing on the experiences of HK, an IT System Analyst, and the behavior of GP, a project accountant. The analysis is grounded in the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination based on race, nationality, and color. The report assesses whether GP's actions constituted discrimination, considering legal definitions of harassment and indirect discrimination. It reviews relevant case laws, employee duties, and the organization's policies on discrimination, also evaluating the overall environment within the company. The investigation includes statements from multiple employees, highlighting the complexities of the situation and the potential breaches of conduct within the organization. Ultimately, the study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the incident and offer recommendations for addressing and preventing future occurrences of discrimination. Desklib provides comprehensive study tools including access to similar solved assignments.

ASSIGNMENT
1

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Methodology of assessment.......................................................................................................3
Analysis of Findings..................................................................................................................4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................9
Recommendation........................................................................................................................9
References...........................................................................................................................11
2

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with provision of Equality Act 2010, discrimination of individuals on the basis
of race, age, sex, pregnancy and maternity, religious beliefs, gender disassignment etc is
illegal (Gray, 2016). An organization is required to promote a good and harmonious working
environment and same can be done only in case all the employees are treated with respect and
dignity. Further, no form of intimidation or harassment can be justified through any
explanation in the organization. Present report emphasizes on the case of HK (IT System
Analyst) who has dealt with situation of racial discrimination due to behaviour of GP (project
accountant). The basic framework of Equality Act 2010 provides protection against direct as
well as indirect discrimination, victimization and harassment in public functions,
associations, work place, and education (Wrench, 2016).
The main objective of the report is to assess whether discrimination behaviour was actually
made by GP or not. The main part of the organization which is being affected is the, human
resource department as it is responsible for managing as well as recruitment of the
employees. The specified issue is important and required to be considered in appropriate
manner in order to ascertain the nature of environment present within organization. The
report will be addressed to the investigation team so that they can assess the case
appropriately and take decision after considering all the facts.
METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT
In order to assess the case in appropriate manner primary as well as secondary sources
relating to the case have been analyzed in detail. The provision relating to discrimination in
Equality Act 2010 have been assessed along with aadditional legislation that might be applied
in terms of racial or any other discrimination claims which are –
 Modern Slavery Act 2015
 Protection from Harassment Act 1997
 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
Further, the procedure applied by the company in order to assess whether the claimant is right
or not have been also assessed in order to ascertain whether appropriate attempt has been
3

made to know the truth or not. The procedure and policies of the company have been
analysed in detail for ascertaining whether regulations relating to discrimination exists or not
and the extent to which they have been compiled by the organization (Chander, 2016).
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Discrimination from legal perspective
Equality Act 2010 specifies that an individual must not be discriminated due to race (Gray,
2018). Further, race is signified through the individual’s nationality comprising citizenship
and color (Arnold, 2016). Behavior could be the major cause behind the racial harassment
and further in case it is an unnecessary behavior of the ethnic nature which is unpleasant or
humiliating to the receiver is deemed as misconduct (indirect discrimination) (Kattari, and
Hasche, 2016).
The specified act has also modified the definition of gender reassignment through removing
the necessity of medical supervision (Wrench, 2016). Further, it also provides protection to
individuals who have dealt with discrimination from person with whom they are perceived to
have protected characteristic. The legislation is sustained by Codes of Practice that are
imitated in their strategy and performance (Freedland,at.el 2016).
It almost depends on the recipient of the supposed nuisance to make a decisions regarding
whether conduct is nasty or not. Bigoted jokes, Insulting words, keeping out from workplace
discussion or activities, ethnically nasty material and aggression or the threat of hostility are
incorporated in racial harassment (Barbieri, and Cutuli, 2015). When someone makes us feel
degraded, offended or humiliated at that time the Harassment take place. Further, it has been
appropriately specified in Part 5 of Employment Act 2010 in clause 40 that employees and
application should not discriminate another person who comprises an employee as well as a
person who has been applied for employment (William, 2016).
Legal Decision and case laws
Harassment cannot be justified in any manner. On the other hand, in case where an employer
or an organization can establish it the whole thing for preventing people who work for it as of
performing like that, that they have no right to claim for harassment next to it. Even in that
case they might make a claim next to the harasser. In the condition of prejudice or sexual
4

harassment employer might be vicariously accountable for the activities carried out by the
employees. Furthermore company will be answerable directly for the bias happenings. It is
the optimistic responsibility of the employer to eradicate sexual pestering and oppression as
well as prejudice, to the possible extent. By the procedure of the conciliation complaint of
prejudice which is made to the Commission can be determined. Following is the brief
discussion regarding the procedure for resolving complaints.
One of the cases i.e. Brown v Young &Co’s Brewery could be assessed in order to analyze
the manner in which law assesses the perspectives of discrimination. As in specified case it
was acknowledged by the employment tribunal that the manager had uttered the word “pimp”
and the main reason behind it is that the claimant was black and that the word uttered by the
manager made him felt offensive and insulting (Myrdal,2017).
Further it was recognized by the tribunal that the manager may have made the relationship
subconsciously. Before making final decision Employment court had the strange task in the
Brown v Young &Co’s Brewery, for considering rather it is true or not that a manager
harassed a black pub employee while he say to him that he “looked like a pimp” at the time
when he wear a promotional St Patrick’s Day hat. On the other hand, it was known by the
tribunal that merely one comment can results into the breach of the claimant’s self-respect as
well as it was logical for the claimant to be insulted (Cantle, 2018). In another case of Harper
v Housing 21 it was concluded by employment tribunal that comments which have been
specified by claimant “My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding” amounted to racial discrimination
(Hammer, 2018). The reason behind same on the basis of which decision was made was that
the comments were made only because the claimant was Irish (Back, 2017).
Employee’s duties
It the responsibility of the employees, not to discriminate to any coworkers for any race
related issues such as their nationality, national origins, color, and ethnic origins(McKay,
2016). A workers is not supposed to discriminate against any member of staff who has made
a complains or those have a intension to complain (Truxillo and et.al.,2017). It comprises the
situation in which he or she was knowledgeable before about race discrimination or anybody
who has helped out a coworker in making a complaint of prejudice or discrimination
(Dominelli, 2017).
5

Workers should not get connect in any conduct which further could be taken as ethnic
harassment (Morrell, Foster, and Hay, 2015). As well they should never act in a manner that
might amount to harassment because of the supposed race of a coworker, or the race of
anybody with whom that coworker links. Workers are beneath a responsibility to adhere to
their company’s equivalent chance and anti-harassment strategies for making sure that
colleagues are treated in the well manner with full respect and dignity (Burke, 2016).
In present case of discrimination as claimant HK specified that GP did not behaved in
appropriate manner and carried on calling her blacky at the lunch even after I stated that same
is offensive. Moreover, she continued to say same thing even when I asked to stop the same
and enforced HK to deal with an awkward situation. All these statements assert that GP did
not complied with duties of an employee and did discriminated behavior with HK even after
making appropriate steps to stop him to do so. Thus, it can be concluded that GP has not been
a responsible employee and require to improve the behavior as well as to comply with the
provision of organization (Unsal, 2019).
Organization policies relating to discrimination
The company had made various provisions regarding the racial discrimination of the
employees. Organizations have set an equal rights for their employees, clients, customers,
visitors of the grounds they all will get same treatments apart from their disability, sexual
category, reassignment, age, civil partnership, maternity, marriage, race, sex or sexual
orientation, religion or belief (Murphy, 2016). However these are the primarily secluded
aspects in the association. All types of illegal and unjustifiable discrimination are opposed by
the management. Furthermore fair treatment will be given to the candidates while promotion,
selection for job, training process. Apart from this benefits will be provided to them
according to their capability and talent.
Discriminations can be formed in various kinds that are not favorable for the organizations
strategy for example victimization, direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and
harassment (Grayson and Hodges, 2017).The major aim of the company is to provide
harmonious and excellent business surroundings for their employees where they can perform
with self-respect and dignity moreover they make the strategy by which no harassment or
discrimination occurs. Association meets all the legal obligations beneath the pertinent
legislation and connected Codes of Practice (Petrin and Choudhury, 2018).
6

In order to prevent the discrimination in the organization, code of conduct have been drafted
which comprises rules which are required to be exist in a professional work environment.
Violation to any conduct or potential misconduct leads to disciplinary action in accordance
with circumstance of specific case. In accordance with code of conduct of organization
misconduct comprises insubordination, foul or abusive language, unauthorized disclosure of
organization information, harassment or victimization, dishonesty etc (Lentin, 2016). In
present case it can be assessed that GP has done misconduct as he used foul language by
stating the words as ‘Blacky’. Further, due to this inappropriate behavior, other misconduct
which has been impliedly conducted is insubordination and dishonesty. As GP is not
accepting the misconduct and as a profession the specified misconduct would not have been
acted on. As per the provision of Equality Act, conduct acted by GP will be considered as
racial discrimination and disciplinary action will be taken against same.
Assessment of environment existing within organization
As per the investigation some important issues regarding the discrimination in the company
comes into consideration. Where employee had made a comment regarding the face and the
features of the other employee and also she referred her as Blacky and in different terms.
Initially she doesn’t consider for further also she doesn’t stop and continue with the same
words which make an employee uncomfortable till the next day too.
Behavior of the GP was brutal till the very next day as there was a Christmas lunch organized
in the company all the employees were there in the meeting where she behave by shouting
and continue to comment inappropriate regarding its family also. Further MG (IT Manager)
state the point of time when she sent out an unsuitable email to IT in joke. Employees who
got abused as well mentioned the time she called her as blacky. And furthermore she doesn’t
felt bad by calling her blacky. Targeted Employee told her that this is unpleasant and again
she continued by saying to other guys that one day she woke up with swollen lips and that her
lips looked like mine and began making a fish pouty expression with her lips. In spite of
taking her name she called her blacky every usual time. When the situation got unbearable
employee unfortunately had to leave.
The employee who is suffering with such discriminate behavior in the company got broken
and demotivated and assume that I am not worthy of being called by my given name. It's in
addition dehumanizing for the reason that she is only a girl in the company who is defined by
its complexion not by its identity.
7

Analysis of statements of other employees relating to incident
IT Manager (MG) who was also present at the evening on which incident occurred stated that
he was sitting at the end of the table and involved in the conversation with other people. But
he noticed that the tension on that side of table increased which turn the attention of all the
people towards them. However, he was not witness of calling GP blacky as he didn’t hear the
same. Further he stated that GP persistently tried to explain that the act was not to mean any
harm intentionally. He also stated that GP was feeling sorry and she (GP) didn’t make any
statement in order to harm HK. On the contrary YK stated that he was sitting next to GP and
opposite to HK and listen the whole conversation between them. As per his statements GP
did not say the words sorry but kept on providing explanation that she doesn’t mean it in bad
way. Further PH (personal assistant) also stated that GP called ‘Blacky’ in a crazy manner
and kept on explaining that she had no offensive intentions behind same. Overall, it can be
analyzed from the statements of other employees that GP said ‘Blacky’ and didn’t said sorry
by words but expressed through giving explanation that she had no offensive intention.
Though, other employees also stated that GP has no hard intentions but decision relating to
same can be taken by HK only, as she is the one who suffered the situation. Thus, it can be
concluded that misconduct has been done by GP acted on the basis of racial discrimination
with HK.
Conducts or steps taken by organization against discrimination and misconduct in the
organization
The organization has an appropriate structure of five stages in order to take disciplinary
action against the misconduct. It comprises first warning, final written warning, and
dismissal, right to appeal and right to suspend. The procedure is complete in itself as it
provides an equal opportunity to the employee as well for presenting his or her part of view
regarding the incident. Further, dismissal is provided only in case the conduct or performance
of the employee is still not improved and information relating to same has been provided with
prior notice. In present scenario, it has been assessed that the procedure relating to
disciplinary action has been appropriate complied in case of misconduct of GP. The same can
be stated on the basis of notice which was provided to GP in which it was specified that
suspension action has been taken till the pending effect of further investigation relating to
allegation of gross misconduct.
8

Further, information relating to attending workplace for investigation interviews has been
also provided at the same time so that further operation could be conducted in smooth
manner. The investigation meeting has also been conducted with assistance of senior
employers comprising Associate Design Director (YK), IT Manager (MG), HR Manager
(SK) after considering the sensitivity of the issue. Further, efficient efforts have been made to
ascertain evidence through the statements of other employees who were available at the time
of incident. After analyzing the procedure of organization it can be assessed that the policy
relating to disciplinary action have been complied in appropriate manner. Moreover,
appropriate attempt has been made to conclude that whether GP has made any misconduct or
not as well as to assess every perspective of the incident in detail manner before making any
decision.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from above discussion that as GP behaviour was inappropriate and will
be considered as discrimination. Further, appropriate steps have been taken by company
through appointing investigation team in order to resolve the case. The provision of Equality
Act 2010, have not been complied by GP, as it is illegal to discriminate the populace rather in
a direct or indirect manner regarding the employee’s sex, gender, race, sexual orientation,
race, sexual orientation, beliefs and disability or relocation. Thus, appropriate disciplinary
action is required to be taken in order to decrease the probability of this kind of conduct on a
repetitive basis.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to endorse the racial equality manager should consider such positive activities -
 Job advertisements can be done in racial minority press publications
 Promotion of the applications from an alternative racial group will be encouraged
and welcome (Butlin, and Allen, 2018)
 Recruitment through means of employment agencies that are situated in the sector
where populace from an alternative ethnic group is concerted
 By providing the constructive support to workers as of ethnic minority setting, and
for applying for management posts (Lane and Ingleby, 2017.)
9

 By planning recruitment movement for an alternative racial group.
Besides such measures, managers should , at the time of selecting the employment for
endorsement might choose a applicant from an under-represented or deprived racial group in
the situations where the applicant under discussion must be “as qualified as” as additional
applicant who are beneath consideration (Wrench, 2016).
As per the Explanatory Notes to the Equality Act 2010, the saying “as qualified as” refers not
simply for academic qualifications, other than that it is also applicable to all the decisive
factor which are planned by the manager for the placement in question, for example, general
capability, appropriate experience and skills. An additional situation for such kind of
activities to be lawful is that while making decisions preference should be given to somebody
as they are of an exacting race and there should be a balanced means of tackling the
applicable under-representation or drawback. Through taking these preventive measure
organization would not be fuzzed in existing critical scenarios. Moreover, it would be able to
maintain positive environment in the organization which will motivate and energize the
employees.
10

REFERENCES
Arnold, D.G., 2016. Corporations and human rights obligations. Business and Human Rights
Journal, 1(2), pp.255-275.
Back, L., 2017. New Ethnicities and Urban Culture: social identity and racism in the lives of
young people. Routledge.
Barbieri, P. and Cutuli, G., 2015. Employment protection legislation, labour market dualism,
and inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review, 32(4), pp.501-516.
Burke, R.J., 2016. Corporate reputations: Development, maintenance, change and repair.
In Corporate Reputation (pp. 19-59).Routledge.
Butlin, S.F. and Allen, R., 2018. Worker Status and Vicarious Liability: The Need for
Coherence.
Cantle, T., 2018. Community cohesion: A new framework for race and diversity. Springer.
Chander, A., 2016. The racist algorithm. Mich. L. Rev., 115, p.1023.
Dominelli, L., 2017. Anti-racist social work.Macmillan International Higher Education.
Freedland, M., Bogg, A., Cabrelli, D., Collins, H., Countouris, N., Davies, A.C.L., Deakin, S.
and Prassl, J. eds., 2016. The contract of employment.Oxford University Press.
Gray, A., 2018. Vicarious liability: critique and reform. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gray, R.C., 2016. Direct Discrimination: Redemption by General Defence. Edinburgh
Student L. Rev., 3, p.68.
Grayson, D. and Hodges, A., 2017. Corporate social opportunity!: Seven steps to make
corporate social responsibility work for your business. Routledge.
11

Hammer, L.M., 2018. The International Human Right to Freedom of Conscience: Some
Suggestions for Its Development and Application: Some Suggestions for Its Development
and Application. Routledge.
Kattari, S.K. and Hasche, L., 2016. Differences across age groups in transgender and gender
non-conforming people’s experiences of health care discrimination, harassment, and
victimization. Journal of aging and health discrimination, 28(2), pp.285-306.
Lane, J.A. and Ingleby, R., 2017. Indirect discrimination, justification and proportionality:
are UK claimants at a disadvantage? Industrial Law Journal.
Lentin, A., 2016. Racism in public or public racism: doing anti-racism in ‘post-
racial’times. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 39(1), pp.33-48.
Morrell, J., Foster, R. and Hay, G., 2015. Local authority liability.Jordans.
Murphy, L.W., 2016. Airbnb’s Work to Fight Discrimination and Build Inclusion. Report
submitted to Airbnb, 8, p.2016.
Myrdal, G., 2017. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy,
Volume 1. Routledge.
Petrin, M. and Choudhury, B., 2018.Group Company Liability. European Business
Organization Law Review, 19(4), pp.771-796.
Truxillo, D.M., Finkelstein, L.M., Fraccaroli, F. and Kanfer, R., 2015. Issue 5: Age
Differences and Discrimination. In Facing the Challenges of a Multi-Age Workforce (pp.
287-346).Routledge.
McKay, S., 2016. A right not to be discriminated against: The origins and evolution of
discrimination law. In Gower handbook of discrimination at work (pp. 35-46).Routledge.
Unsal, O., 2019. Employee relations and firm risk: Evidence from court rooms. Research in
International Business and Finance, 48, pp.1-16.
12

William, L.C., 2016. The implementation of equality legislation: the case of disabled
graduates and reasonable adjustments. Industrial Relations Journal, 47(4), pp.341-359.
Wrench, J., 2016. Diversity management and discrimination: Immigrants and ethnic
minorities in the EU. Routledge.
13