Search

How can we help?

Icon

Melanie Pimenta comments on ‘positive action’ and what it means for employers

What’s the difference between positive action and positive discrimination?

With so many initiatives focusing on equality, diversity and inclusion, we often hear about examples of positive action or positive discrimination in the context of employers’ approaches to increasing representation.

In Personnel Today, Melanie Pimenta, Senior Solicitor at Clarkslegal, discusses ‘positive action’ and what it means for employers.

“Broadly speaking, positive action, which is voluntary, is where employers take proportionate action to achieve more effective equality outcomes for individuals sharing a particular protected characteristic who are disadvantaged or excluded,” Melanie says.

“Section 158 is the general ‘positive action’ provision, enabling employers to take measures that will encourage greater participation from under-represented groups. It can take many forms, including providing a specifically tailored service to a disadvantaged group or including statements in job adverts to encourage applications from under-represented groups.”

Read the full article: Personnel Today

If you have any questions in relation to discrimination, please contact our employment lawyers for advice.

Melanie Pimenta

Associate

View profile

+44 118 960 4653

“The Equality Act 2010 says that it is lawful for employers to take positive action, but the law does not allow positive discrimination, but the line between the two often causes confusion.”

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Melanie Pimenta

Associate

View profile

+44 118 960 4653

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 24 November 2017
  • Employment

Union bids for recognition with end user not employer

This week a trade union, IWGB, has applied for statutory recognition to represent a group of receptionists, security officers and porters who work at the University of London even though these workers are employed by Cordant Security, a facilities management company with the contract to provide services to the University.

art
  • 17 November 2017
  • Employment

Pension scheme did not discriminate workers

In Dr Parker v MDU Services Ltd, the claimant alleged that her employer’s pension scheme indirectly discriminated against workers who had a combination of full and part-time service.

art
  • 17 November 2017
  • Employment

Deliveroo: Late substitution leads to a win against the run of play

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) has finally given its decision on whether a particular group of Deliveroo riders – those in the Camden/Kentish Town area of North London who are paid per delivery – are workers of Deliveroo or are independent suppliers of services to Deliveroo.

art
  • 13 November 2017
  • Employment

Will Uber work in the area again?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has today upheld the ET decision that when the Uber drivers were in the work area, available for work and with Uber app switched on, they were workers with rights to national minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.

art
  • 13 November 2017
  • Employment

Michael Sippitt comments on Uber losing UK legal appeal against drivers’ rights

Taxi-hailing firm Uber has lost its appeal on Friday (10 November) against a ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers rather than self-employed.

art
  • 10 November 2017
  • Employment

The importance of understanding the economic entity in a TUPE situation

For there to be a business transfer under TUPE there must be an ‘economic entity’ that retains its identity post-transfer.