examples of "equalities act" language in contracts

[andhessixfeetten]

I spotted this one today and felt it was chiefly remarkable for the inclusion of "colour". Is there a history of the use of such a term? It sounds like something from the 1960s to me.

"gender, race, colour, national origin, disability, sexual orientation or age".

Is "gender" doing double-duty and substituting for both sex and gender reassignment here?

Colour of what? Hair? Eyes? Skin?

National origin is also not necessarily nationality. National origin could be country of birth or nationality of your parents.

The use of gender does indeed read like 'double duty' - basically this phrasing misrepresents the EA so it should be corrected.

Both colour and race are noted in the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 17/19 and also sexual orientation and 'gender identity' is too, though neither are defined.

(I know what they mean obviously but the UN doesn't expressly outline what 'gender identity' is.)

to check, the characteristics are
age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation?

I'm no expert I just see refererences in contracts and it's of interest because of this board.

I just googled to take and got University of Sheffield's guidance here:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/hr/equality/focus/2.5491/protected

I noticed the gloss below - is this correct?
Gender reassignment (new definition)

The Act provides protection for transsexual people. A transsexual person is someone who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change his or her gender. The Act no longer requires a person to be under medical supervision to be protected – so a woman who decides to live as a man but does not undergo any medical procedures would be covered.

It is discrimination to treat transsexual people less favourably for being absent from work because they propose to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment than they would be treated if they were absent because they were ill or injured

interesting re colour by the way!

Race and colour aren't necessarily synonymous, people used to widely believe that different ethnicities of white Europeans were different races, for example.

people used to widely believe that different ethnicities of white Europeans were different races

They are as much different races as many others are. Some are very distinct eg. Roma.

Race creed or color is the way the 1964 civil rights act was written.

Creed: a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.

Sheffield's guidance is a direct misrepresentation of the law. Gender Reassignment is only recognised with a GRC. No GRC, no protected characteristic.

So no, they can't just rewrite the definition of Gender Reassignment as specified by law.

This has probably been rewritten unilaterally by Stonewall and presented to Sheffield uni as fact. Stonewall lies are everywhere.

They are as much different races as many others are. Some are very distinct eg. Roma.

It's difficult to pin down what race means, it's really whatever people define it as meaning.

The Equality Act drew together different existing legislation, which is why ‘race’ and ‘sex’ are the protected characteristics, not ethnicity or gender (Race Relations Act 1975, Sex Discrimination Act 1976) because they were the preferred terms then. Colour is definitely wrong, as is national origin. Looks like a very sloppy contract! Incidentally, the original legislation included a socio economic duty for public bodies but the coalition government chose not to enforce it.

“This has probably been rewritten unilaterally by Stonewall and presented to Sheffield uni as fact. Stonewall lies are everywhere.”

Worth noting further instances here maybe?

Gender Reassignment is only recognised with a GRC. No GRC, no protected characteristic.

Sorry but that is not the case. Gender reassignment doesn’t require much action. However, where services or facilities are set aside for a single sex then you do need a GRC to acquire that ‘sex’ in order to access that service/facility and even then can be excluded for reasons of privacy and dignity.

You're right with the list of protected characteristics. And they are often misrepresented in policies- especially gender instead of sex. But it is not inappropriate to make reference to colour and national origin ... the definition of race in the Equality Act is...

9*
Race
(1)
Race includes—
(a)
colour;
(b)
nationality;
(c)
ethnic or national origins.
(2)

And yes, no GRC is required for there to be discrimination so long as there is "transition "- which need not be medical at all.

Interesting -thanks. Beryl!