Editor's message: Race is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits direct and indirect race discrimination, victimisation and harassment. Under the Act, race means colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins.
Dress codes at work often prompt discussion about the risk of race discrimination as certain ethnic groups are subject to strict cultural requirements. Employers that insist on dress rules that contradict the cultural conventions of such groups may be discriminating indirectly against those employees, and need to tread carefully.
Indirect race discrimination, as with any other type of indirect discrimination, can be justified if an employer can show that the application of the provision, criterion or practice creating the indirect discrimination (in this context, the dress rules) is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.
Ellie Gelder, employment law editor
What were the most significant employment case law decisions in 2016? Stephen Simpson counts down the 10 most important judgments for employers this year.
Updated to include information on the language requirements for public-sector workers in customer-facing roles, which came into effect on 21 November 2016.
Cases on appeal provides news on key case law developments that are expected.
Ex-England and Spurs footballer Paul Gascoigne has pleaded guilty to racially aggravated abuse over a "joke" he made to a black security guard. The court fined Gascoigne and ordered him to pay £1,000 in compensation. Fiona Cuming rounds up five employment law cases involving racism in the workplace.
A table listing the race discrimination awards made by employment tribunals in 2015/16.
Updated to include a reference to illegal working closure notices and compliance orders, introduced from 1 December 2016.
The requirement to speak English at work and dress codes at work are policy areas where employers should tread carefully to avoid discrimination. Deborah Bulman, a senior associate from Burges Salmon LLP, considers recent legal controversies and gives tips on drafting employment policies.
In Onu v Akwiwu and another; Taiwo v Olaigbe and another  IRLR 719 SC, the Supreme Court held that migrant domestic workers who were mistreated by their employers, the opportunity for which was afforded by their immigration status, were not subject to direct discrimination on grounds of their nationality. While immigration status is a function of nationality, nationality of itself was not the reason for the treatment.
In Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency)  IRLR 724 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a claimant in an indirect discrimination case must establish the nature of the group disadvantage created by the provision, criterion or practice, as well as the way in which he or she has suffered that disadvantage as an individual.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.