就业歧视Discrimination in employment [4]
论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:硕士毕业论文 dissertation登出时间:2016-04-30编辑:anne点击率:14881
论文字数:37284论文编号:org201604281127597386语种:英语 English地区:英国价格:$ 44
关键词:就业歧视Discrimination in employment职位空缺
摘要:性别,种族或残疾的基础上的歧视是最常见的形式,但一个人也可以歧视的理由,年龄,宗教信仰,政治说服,工会会员,性倾向或有犯罪记录。
scope of their employment. An employer may be able to defend such a claim if he can show that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination from taking place. The following cases highlight situations where employers have been held to be vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. Burton & Rhule v De Vere Hotels (1996) Ms Burton worked as a waitress at a De Vere Hotel. A ‘comedian’ began to make an after dinner speech while she was clearing tables. His ‘jokes’ and remarks were racially motivated and directed at herself and the other black waitresses. She became very distressed. She made a claim to the Industrial Tribunal alleging racial discrimination, stating that her employers had created a discriminatory environment by inviting the particular ‘comedian’ on to the premises. Held The employers were responsible for the discrimination as they had known that this particular ‘comedian’ was likely to be offensive and even when alerted to the situation had done nothing to prevent him from continuing. They should have taken all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination from either continuing or taking place. Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997) Jones, a 16-year-old boy of mixed race, was severely racially abused by his colleagues. They had called him names, stuck offensive
notes to his back, assaulted him, branded him with a hot screwdriver, whipped him and generally made his time at work unbearable. He alleged that his employers were vicariously liable for the racial abuse. Held For an employer to be vicariously liable for their acts, the employees have to be acting ‘in the course of their employment’. Whilst it was admitted that the acts here were not done within the ‘course of employment’, the Court of Appeal said that it would be wrong to allow racial harassment on this scale to go unpunished. In this case the actions were so severe that the employers were held to be vicariously liable. The decision in Burton was disapproved by the House of Lords in Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School (2002). Here, the House of Lords suggested (obiter) that an employer will not be liable for unlawful sexual or racial discrimination unless the reason why it failed to prevent the harassment was related to the sex or race of the employee. See also, Irving v Post Office (1987), Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1997), Chief Constable of the Lincolnshire Police v Stubbs (1999), Bennett v Essex County Council & ors (1999).
European sex discrimination law POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION It is unlawful to positively discriminate in favour of one particular sex or racial group. This means that although advertisements may explicitly encourage applications from, for example ‘women, or persons from ethnic minorities’, an employer cannot refuse to send out job information to men or persons from a different racial group. In relation to training while at work, s 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (s 22, EA 2010) states that an employer can encourage people from one sex to train for a particular job if in the preceding 12 months the job has been done exclusively by people from the opposite sex. This exception also applies to situations where the number of persons from one sex doing a particular job is so small that it creates a sexual imbalance in the workforce. Section 38 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (s 158, EA 2010) contains a similar provision allowing employers to encourage the training 本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。