Following the closure of the Gender Recognition Act consultation, many people have voiced their opinions regarding the need to reform the act, due to a variety of problematic issues.

The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA) have discussed the negative implications of the Gender Recognition 2004 act and have called for a repeal of section 22 of the act, which they believe inadvertently criminalises innocent members of staff, especially HR employees who assist trans job seekers.

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 states:

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, which has set out rules in relation to racial discrimination against potential and current employees in the workplace. This includes discrimination against colour, nationality, and ethnicity.

There are four main types of racial discrimination, including:

• Direct Discrimination, which occurs when an employee is treated less favourably in relation to another member of staff due to their actual race, perceived race, or the race of an employee’s associate.

• SEX DISCRIMINATION AT WORK

  

  Under the Equality Act 2010, It is deemed unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their gender. Sex discrimination usually occurs in work environments; therefore, employers should ensure that their policies and procedures in place to deal with any complaints regarding discrimination.

  There are four different types of sex discrimination, including:

  • Direct Discrimination, which occurs when someone treats you unfairly in comparison to someone of a different gender. An example of this would be if a pregnant employee was apprehended for being off sick because of her morning sickness. This is direct discrimination against pregnant women.

  • STUC ACCUSED OF RACE DISCRIMINATION.

    

    A former employee of the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC), Zaffir Hakim, has recently been successful in his race discrimination case against the STUC, with the assistance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Ultimately, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that Mr Hakim had been unfairly dismissed by STUC, after 11 years of service working under a Scottish Government-funded scheme. This scheme was actually targeting workplace racism, although ultimately decided to allow Mr Hakim’s white colleague to stay on in a similar role.

    Zaffir Hakim started work under the STUC in 2003, working as a Development Officer for the One Workplace Equal Rights Project, which was launched by STUC in order to “challenge discrimination in the workplace and promote good practice”. Although, Mr Hakim actually made several complaints regarding racial discrimination under STUC, stating: