Straight Legg reminds us that we all have human rights

The article was first published in Personnel Today, on 22 January 2008.

Legislation is rarely introduced to universal acclaim.  Equality legislation has had its fair share of detractors complaining of political correctness gone mad and the burden on business.  But one person’s red tape is another person’s protection and legislation which may have the primary purpose of protecting a minority group, may equally protect the majority.

The recent Tribunal case of Sharon Legg v Rubyz Limited pitted a heterosexual, married, mother against the owners of Dreams nightclub, Bournemouth.  Mrs Legg successfully argued that the harassment she had suffered at work was on the grounds of her sexual orientation.  She told the Tribunal that she was frequently subjected to abuse because she was not a lesbian and was referred to derogatorily by her manager as a “breeder.”  Her former employers were ordered to pay £3,000 to her for injury to feelings.

When the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 were introduced their main aim was to combat discrimination against gay employees.  A TUC survey of gay employees published in 2000 had found that 44% believed they had suffered discrimination at work on the grounds of their sexuality.    

However, the 2003 Regulations provide protection from discrimination whether your sexual orientation is to the same sex, the opposite sex, or both.  Mrs Legg therefore found herself protected from discrimination related to her sexual orientation towards men.  In particular, she was protected against harassment where, on the grounds of her sexual orientation, her manager engaged in unwanted conduct which had the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.

Similarly, the legislation on age discrimination provides protection against discrimination for persons of all ages not just the old.  Race discrimination legislation protects everyone since we are all members of a racial group and sex discrimination protects both men and women and those undergoing gender reassignment.  Legislation outlawing religious discrimination covers any religious or philosophical belief.  Disability discrimination legislation however, protects only the disabled.

Whilst the evolution of the separate “strands” of discrimination has led to some anomalies in the law, the overall thrust of the legislation, as Mrs Legg has reminded us, is to create an equal, inclusive society where everyone is treated with respect and where there is opportunity for all.

The Employment Tribunal statistics for the financial year ending 31 March 2007, show that there were only 470 sexual orientation discrimination claims made in that year.  This number seems low.  On some estimates up to 10% of the 30 million people in employment in the UK are gay.  Based on the TUC’s sample of 44% reporting discrimination in 2000 there would be scope for around 1.3 million sexual orientation discrimination claims in the Tribunal.  Maybe, just maybe, the legislation introduced four years ago has contributed to a change in the treatment of gay employees at work.

Certainly, good employers have developed anti-harassment policies and staff training programmes which incorporate sexual orientation.  Some employers did so voluntarily before the legislation was introduced.  Anecdotally, the legislation has however, accelerated and expanded the adoption of good practice.  The monitoring of job applicants and employees by sexual orientation as well as by race and sex is also beginning to gain acceptance with both employers and employees. 

There is a long way to go but the movement  towards a more equal more inclusive workplace is positive.  Mrs Legg’s case has made a contribution to highlighting the fact that minority groups do not have a monopoly on equality of treatment and there is legal redress for all victims of harassment at work.

For further information, please contact Richard Kenyon.