Employment Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 6

Employment Law - Essay ExampleTheopopolous. In extension the respondent has failed to abide by the statutory requirements pertinent to transaction conduct and employment termination procedures.Originally, discrepancy under the RRA 1976 can be committed in three ways direct inequality, indirect discrimination and victimisation. The primary distinction among the three is that in direct discrimination it is the respondent which treats the complainant comparatively less(prenominal) than the others by reason of the latters racial or ethnic origin, in indirect discrimination, it is the define or requirement which becomes the tool of discrimination because such condition cannot be complied with by the complainant by reason of his racial or ethnical custom and beliefs, and in victimisation, the discrimination occurs after the complainant has filed a incident of discrimination or done any other previous act testifying or communicate others of such discriminatory practices by the employ er (Race Relations Act 19976). In 2003 however, the RRA 1976 was amended to include another crime syndicate harassment now integrated into the law as Section 3A. The said section statesThe case of Gravell v London Borough of Bexley, 2007 UKEAT 0587_06_0203 which treats of racial discrimination in employment through harassment finds parallelism in the have case. The case was an appeal for a review of a part of a decision of the lower employment tribunal which struck out two specific allegations of the complainant first, the policy of the respondent employer not to scrap racist comments, and second, the failure of the respondent employer to correct the racial harassments made by her co-employer through test messages regular though she specifically brought them to its attention. The lower tribunals rationale for its decision was that the allegations did not have often chance of success in the light of the obiter dictum made by the House of Lords in the case of Pearce v The Gover ning Body