How to avoid making discriminatory office policies

An environment where obvious discrimination and overt discriminatory policies are in the workplace is happening less and less frequently. In the company incorporation, you don’t often here anymore any discriminatory remarks directed colleagues and other employees. This is most certainly a positive development that has a good effect on business in general and employee morale, in particular.

But even though discrimination is not as rampant in the workplace like it used to be, the fact remains that discrimination still has not been completely eradicated in the workplace. Sometimes the forms that discrimination takes are subtle and subconscious – a good example would be in the recruitment process. An employer may decide that he only wants to recruit more of the same types of employees. Employers also often forget about indirect discrimination and the effect that policies and procedures have on certain groups of staff. Hiring policies that focus on, for example, height, and not the qualifications of the individual to do the job can be construed as an indirect form of discrimination. In fact a number of people have claimed discrimination against a prospective employer precisely because of situations similar to what was mentioned.

But there are also more obvious examples of continued discrimination in the company incorporation – for example concerning the requirement for employees to work full time or part time. One case is in policies that would obviously affect women who have children or who are pregnant.

The crux of the issue when it comes to work discrimination is whether a certain policy can be objectively justified by the implementing organisation responsible for these rules. Can a business owner justify treatment that would be detrimental to a considerably larger proportion of one group, protected in legislation by their sex, race, sexual orientation, religion or belief, than another group?

Last 1st October 2005, the government has issued a revised definition of indirect sex discrimination This move brings the matter more into line with the ongoing legislation on race, sexual orientation and belief.

Based on the revision, employers will be required to objectively justify a provision, criterion, practice or policy, which is seen to cause a particular disadvantage, by showing that:

• The requirement meets a legitimate business aim
• It is a proportionate means of meeting that aim

In the midst of this changing legislative climate regarding discrimination it would be best to avoid any doubts about potentially discriminatory office policies. Thus, it would be in their best interest to study the possibility of putting the following steps in place:

• Carefully consider and provisions, criteria, practices or policies that looks like it would cause a disadvantage, and determine the business aim of the practice
• Carry out a thorough and critical analysis of the practice and study the degree that it meets its stated business aim
• Try to avoid making assumptions about what can and cannot work for the business. Study them to make informed decisions
• Demonstrate that the practice it wishes to follow is reasonably necessary