Managing Equality and Diversity- Case Study Jakob Roan Essay

Managing Equality and Diversity- Case Study Jakob Roan - Essay Example In 1999, the UK government introduced the Public Sector Duties in order to protect not only the women but also the men on work equality. The Equality Act 2006 was introduced to promote equality and diversity in relation to the importance of human rights. Because of some amendments necessary to strengthen the equality law in the United Kingdom, Equality Act 2010 was created and now in force in order to redefine the most recent employment-related claims at the Employment Tribunal office. Against who and Potential Legal Claims that Jakob Roan can bring to an Employment Tribunal Lucas and Tom Sexual harassment at work is not limited to the act of physically forcing an employee to have sex with an immediate boss or vice versa. Particularly in the case of Jakob Roan, verbal harassment like a constant regime of homophobic behaviour has been evident when Lucas and Tom were making funny faces while calling Jakob with the use of some offending names and remarks like: â€Å"a prude†, â€Å"a blooming gay boy†, suggesting that â€Å"he should be more macho†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , and spreading rumours to other employees that they should avoid working with Jakob alone in the office because they can get AIDS by being too close to him. This increases Jakob’s chances of winning a tribunal case . Regardless of whether it was intentional or unintentional, Jakob was able to witness Lucas spreading homophobic remarks about him where the company’s customers could hear.... Furthermore, forcing Jakob to join Lucas and Tom go through the pornographic magazine was already a violation of Jakob’s human right to avoid staring at some pornographic materials. Under Part 2 section 26(1)(b)(i)(ii) of the Equality Act 2010, it was clearly stated that â€Å"A person (A) harasses another (B) if the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity and creating intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B†. It means that harassment within the workplace may occur when the dignity of another person is being violated and degraded as a result of unwanted work-related practices that are sexual by nature5. As an individual, Jakob has negative perception with regards to the use of pornographic materials. The fact that Lucas and Tom was forcing Jakob to join them as they browse the magazine was already a violation of Jakob’s dignity and human rights to refuse to participate. Based on the guidelines stated under Equality Act 2010, it is clear that Jakob has the option and privileges to file a tribunal case against Lucas and Tom for harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. Specifically the case of Jakob Roan who emotionally, mentally, and psychologically suffered from the adverse consequences associated with sexual harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation is very much similar to the case of Morse v Future Reality Ltd [1996]6 wherein Ms. Morse felt sexually harassed when a group of her male co-workers started downloading â€Å"sexually explicit images from the Internet† even though the boys were not directly pointing at her. Dave Under Part 2 section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010, direct discrimination

Introduction to Legal Theory - What is freedom Does law necessarily Essay

Introduction to Legal Theory - What is freedom Does law necessarily restrict freedom - Essay Example This paper examines whether Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy of freedom is well taken care of under current laws. Hobbes posited that human beings are free when their actions are not under the limitation from any other party. In a liberal world, for example, Hobbes would argue that one’s enjoyment of freedom does not encompass the right to subject another person to slavery1. In addition, freedom falls short of the legal right to hit people where there is no need for self-defence. Essentially, a free individual has the wide latitude under the law to engage in whatever he or she so wishes provided that those activities do not offensively hurt or force other individuals against their own freedoms. Freedom apparently cannot encompass the legitimate right to infringe other peoples liberty because that would not only be unfair but illogical2. As Hobbes has indicated, freedom does encompass the legal right to defend oneself from offenders who try to harm or thrust their own will upon the liberal person. In some way, freedom might be real in political lenses, but socially unfavourable, for an individual to enjoy legal protection to inflict aggressive harm on other people if nobody enjoyed the freedom to not be harmed in such manner. It is the ensuing complications as to the enjoyment of freedoms that the law sets in to guarantee the maximum level of liberties which an individual should enjoy in an environment where coexistence is imperative3. In light of this, as Hobbes has said, laws do not necessarily limit freedoms; rather, they enforce a sense of self-control among the citizenry in order to ensure that every person enjoys the maximum freedom possible without behaving in a manner that would be detrimental to others4. In the United Kingdom, The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 is the main body of law which seeks to provide maximum freedoms to the UK citizens. The statute also seeks to safeguard the legal interests of all stakeholders in the society. The HRA envisages