The always helpful Michael Rubenstein has this to say in the Equal
Opportunities Review:
There are some salient facts revealed by the Impact Assessment. There is
a table which sets out the outcome of claims for 2009-10. Since this is
EOR, let's focus on the six discrimination strands during that period,
plus equal pay. There was a total of 53,400 claims disposed; 55.6% were
withdrawn, 23.1% resulted in Acas conciliated settlements and 13.4% were
struck out (not at a hearing). So 92.1% of cases did not get to a
hearing. The percentage of total discrimination cases that were
categorised as "successful" at the employment tribunal is even more
striking:
* sex discrimination - 2%;
* race discrimination - 3%;
* disability discrimination - 3%;
* religious belief discrimination - 2%;
* sexual orientation discrimination - 5%;
* age discrimination - 2%;
* equal pay - 1%.
So much for the system being "weighted in favour of the claimant".
But let's not let facts get in the way of an ideological purge, eh?
Regards,
Dave
Dave Ratchford
Equality & Diversity Manager
Nottingham Trent University
005 Dryden Centre
Dryden Street Nottingham NG1 4FZ
Tel: 0115 848 2904 Fax: 0115 848 6584
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.ntu.ac.uk/equality_diversity/> http://www.ntu.ac.uk/equality
<http://www.ntu.ac.uk/equality>
Please note that this communication is in confidence from the Equality
and Diversity Team. If it has reached you in error, please delete
immediately and notify the Team on the above number given by the Sender.
________________________________
From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ROSE, Albert
Sent: 17 May 2011 11:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Government Considers Lower Discrimination Payouts
Taken from the Diversitylink.co.uk website
Government Considers Lower Discrimination Payouts
The government is considering capping awards for discrimination as part
of a drive to reduce red tape. The review is part of employment
regulation review proposals that "will boost jobs in the private
sector", by making it easier for businesses to be more "flexible" and
aiding "job creation".
Currently awards for proven discrimination are unlimited. Employers
argue that they are forced to settle of out of court because of the
unforeseen costs regardless of cases being weak or strong. They say the
current system proves as an incentive for bringing weak claims forward.
However the Trade Union Congress (TUC) argue that employer claims about
myriad vexatious claims are the equivalent of an urban myth, the TUC
also point out that high payouts are only awarded in severe cases.
Most employment lawyers will tell you that taking a discrimination case
is not easy, firstly no employer is going to admit discrimination, and
witnesses are often reluctant to come forward. Then there is an
indefinite period of being out of work, which can be up to two years
before a case is heard. If you are on a low income you will also have to
consider that you will not get legal aid for representation for your
eventual tribunal hearing. Can employers really argue most
discrimination claimants are opportunists?
Leading family charity Working Families argue they are most certainly
not. The charity operates a helpline for parents who fear they may be
victims of discrimination. Last year Working Families helped over 200
parents with cases which raised discrimination issues (12% of their
helpline callers). The charity claims that during the recession,
employers appear to be flouting the law more blatantly. For example: one
caller was told she could not return to the same hours of work after
maternity leave: her employer told her that, as she had been on leave,
she had "drawn the short straw" and had to do the shifts that no one
else wanted.
Sarah Jackson, Chief Executive of Working Families argues discrimination
pay outs should remain unlimited, considering the loss of earnings and
potential earnings that result from the complete breakdown of an
employment relationship. She comments:-
"The Government admits that the high cost of compensation in
discrimination cases is a concern for employers - so it should be. If we
are serious about tackling discrimination at work - which continues to
be an issue for many callers to Working Families helpline - then the
sanctions need to be severe."
Equality Practitioners have argued for years that the most effective
means of avoiding tribunal payouts are good equality policies. Many
practitioners have sold their services and skills on the basis of
equipping businesses with a good equality and diversity framework to
avoid such penalties whilst gaining the added benefit of getting more
from their workforces. The work of Equality Practitioners has always
made business sense when compared to the cost of getting it wrong. If
the ultimate deterrent is removed, what incentives remain for businesses
to treat individuals equally?
Albert Rose
Equalities Manager
London Deanery
Stewart House
32 Russell Square
London WC1B 5DN
Tel : +44 (0)20 7862 8633
Fax: +44 (0)20 7866 3284
Email: [log in to unmask]
website: http://www.londondeanery.ac.uk
<http://www.londondeanery.ac.uk/>
This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
