Search results

Based on the principle of equality, individuals with disabilities have the right to equal job opportunities and career advancements and to actively participate in the economy like other members of society. This study aims to provide an integrated description of discriminatory occupational practices and behaviours that individuals with disabilities face. This study followed the descriptive analytical approach to achieve the objectives. A questionnaire was used for data collection purposes.

The target population for this study was male and female employees with disabilities working in the Jordanian Government sector for the years 2019–2022 in all governorates of Jordan. The sample method used was purposive-convenient random sampling, and the size of the sample valid for statistical analysis was n = 1,043. Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (v26), a number of statistical tests were conducted to infer the features of the researched phenomenon.

This study found an overall moderate level (mean = 2.76) of practices and behaviours of job discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the Jordanian public sector. All proposed practices and behaviours were at moderate levels of agreement, with the highest discriminatory behaviours being in the areas of training and learning opportunities (2.88), followed by job performance evaluation (2.84), work leave and vacation (2.75), integration and social participation (2.74), career advancement and promotion (2.73) and, last, the distribution of tasks and responsibilities (2.61). Furthermore, it was found that there are significant differences in the levels of discriminatory practices and behaviours towards people with physical disabilities, individuals with visual impairments and psychological disabilities, new employees at work and those with a low level of education. In addition, employees at higher administrative levels (manager, deputy/assistant manager and head of department/division) and workers in the southern and central governorates are exposed to the highest levels of discrimination.

Lack of data: There is often a lack of reliable and comprehensive data on employees with disabilities, making it difficult for researchers to accurately study and understand the experiences of this population. Stigma and discrimination: People with disabilities often face stigma and discrimination, which can make it challenging for researchers to engage with them and collect accurate information.

Moreover, it was found that the main agencies to which cases of discriminatory practices towards individuals with disabilities working in the Jordanian public sector are reported are the direct managers/supervisors (n = 381), the ministry to which the institution/department belongs (n = 278) and the Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (n = 261).

Supporting social inclusion: Employment can provide a sense of purpose, identity and social inclusion for people with disabilities, which can have a positive impact on their disabilities and overall quality of life. Improving diversity and inclusion: The inclusion of employees with disabilities can contribute to a more diverse and inclusive workplace, where all employees feel valued and respected.

This study found that discriminatory practices against employees with disabilities in the Jordanian public sector were largely because of a lack of awareness of reporting mechanisms and negative attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. This study proposes solutions such as raising awareness among non-disabled employees, implementing penalties for discriminatory behaviour and updating legislation for the rights of individuals with disabilities.

Discriminatory abuse has been a distinct category of abuse in safeguarding adults policy since 2000, but it is rarely used in practice, according to recent official statistics. As part of a larger project, the authors undertook a literature review to clarify the concept, explore reasons for low reporting and consider recommendations for practice. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of this literature review.

This literature review comprises 35 sources, which were identified using three academic databases, reference harvesting and sector-specific websites. Findings were developed through thematic analysis of the data.

The literature review demonstrates that definitions of discriminatory abuse stretch from an interpersonal emphasis in policy documents to a more structural approach. There are open questions about the status of discriminatory abuse as a category of abuse due to the complicated interface between discriminatory motivations and the abusive acts through which they are experienced. A range of factors can obscure its identification, particularly the hidden, stigmatised and normalised nature of discriminatory abuse. Some recommendations for practice are identified, but more work is needed to develop the practice vocabulary and required skills.

This study brings together existing research on discriminatory abuse to argue that it is time to revive this understanding of abuse and develop safeguarding practice with adults who have protected characteristics.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

The purpose of this paper is to consider what safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime might learn from existing research on restorative justice and to drive practice development based on available evidence.

This paper is based on a scoping review of literature using four academic databases and reference harvesting. This comprised a critical appraisal of 30 articles, which were thematically analysed to appreciate the benefits and challenges of restorative justice responses to hate crime and how this might inform safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime.

The analysis identifies four domains where learning can be drawn. These relate to theory on restorative justice; restorative justice practices; perspectives from lived experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an appraisal of critiques about restorative justice.

This paper connects the emerging evidence on restorative criminal justice responses to hate crime to the “turn” towards strengths-based practices in adult safeguarding. Although this provides a fertile environment for embedding restorative practices, the authors argue certain precautions are required based on evidence from existing research on hate crime and restorative justice.

The purpose of this paper is to address four interrelated questions: what is the prevalence of ageism amongst employers? What are the factors conditioning employers’ age stereotypes? To what extent are ageist attitudes among employers translated into discriminatory recruitment, retention and firing practices? And what factors can moderate the stereotype–discrimination interaction?

The paper draws on a survey conducted among Danish employers; 2,525 completed the survey questionnaires; response rate 25 per cent.

The major finding is that ageist stereotypes among employers do not translate into discriminatory personnel management practices.

The findings may be specific to Denmark. Denmark is renowned to be a non-hierarchical, egalitarian society, which may have implications for personnel management practices.

Contrary to this study, most studies analysing ageist stereotypes do not assess the extent to which stereotypes are translated into discriminatory personnel management practices in the workplace.

This substantial article begins with an examination of two important grounds of discrimination: sex discrimination governed by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (and the related Equal Pay Act 1970) and racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. Discussion is confined to the right not to be discriminated against and covers the detailed provisions of these acts in this respect, judicial precedents and important cases heard not only in the British courts but in the European Court of Justice. The third section of the article is about discrimination in connection with trade union membership and activities governed by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the related Equal Pay Act 1970, and the Race Relations Act 1976 have not been consolidated by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Each of the Acts treats sex and race discrimination in a general and broad sense. Both make similar provisions in connection with various aspects of discrimination in employment. Since one act is inspired by the other, the judicial precedent in sex discrimination cases will normally be followed in racial discrimination cases and vice versa. Both Acts are outlined and the grounds that constitute discrimination discussed as well as permissible discrimination. Enforcement of the Acts and liability is detailed. Discrimination in connection with trade union membership and activities is also examined. The right not to have action short of dismissal taken against the employee and remedies for action short of dismissal are discussed.

Globally, jurisdictions have made several attempts to eliminate and minimize discrimination in employment. These include moral suasion, social justice arguments, business case arguments, and legislative enactments. Whilst the former has had limited success, the passage of legislation has proved instrumental, not only in containing the perpetration of discrimination based on protected grounds but also in increasing awareness of the disadvantages which result from the disparate treatment meted out to persons as a result of their immutable characteristics. Disabilities are one such grounds. Where legislation exists, it typically prohibits disparate treatment in relation to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, education, and the provision of goods and services. This chapter analyses a sample of discrimination cases, with claimants who have alleged discrimination based on their diagnosis of autism or a related disorder within the autism spectrum. These cases are within the United Kingdom and have been decided by Employment Tribunals in England. The cases and decisions are held at the office of the Employment Tribunal Service in Suffolk and are accessible via their online repository. The sample of Tribunal cases presented here relate to various employment practices within British workplaces.

Retaliation complaints in the workplace have increased 71 percent in the past ten years with a record high of more than 32,000 complaints filed in 2008. The purpose of this paper is to review retaliation legislation to clarify for employers and employees the protected provisions and provide guidance for complying with this important anti‐discrimination statute to aid in promoting a fair and unbiased work environment.

This paper reviews retaliation claims in cases of US employment discrimination including the central elements and covered individuals. It also reviews key recent rulings that have broadened what constitutes retaliation to better understand its impact in workforce management practices. Equity and organizational justice theories are drawn upon to address performance management and employee discipline issues that may arise in the workplace and how organizational action may be impacted by the retaliation statute.

Retaliation is often considered to be an overt act (e.g. demotion or termination) but this review demonstrates that adverse employment actions need not be overt or result from loss of job or wages by the employee. This review can be used to avoid costly litigation but also convey that retaliation statutes do not unduly influence the employer's right to discipline employees.

This paper helps practitioners and researchers better understand retaliation and its purpose in preventing unfair work practices. This historical review of retaliation should help improve employer policies and procedures as well as training efforts in complying with equal employment opportunity laws without compromising concerns related to productivity or disciplinary procedures.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.