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. If your organisation insists on dress rules that contradict the cultural conventions of such groups, you may be discriminating indirectly against those employees, and should tread carefully.
Indirect race discrimination, as with any other type of indirect discrimination, can be justified if you 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
Theresa May will challenge society to "explain or change" disparities in how people from different ethnic backgrounds are treated, as the Government publishes the results of a wide-ranging audit of public services.
A table listing the race discrimination awards made by employment tribunals in 2016/17.
Eight out of 10 (82%) ethnic minority leaders do not trust the organisations they work for, believing there is institutional prejudice against minorities in the UK workforce.
Updated to include information on Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v Bailey, in which the Court of Appeal considered the correct test to apply in victimisation claims.
The Government consults on caste discrimination.
Kirsti Laird is senior associate at Charles Russell Speechlys. She rounds up the latest rulings.
In this podcast, XpertHR consultant editor Darren Newman considers James v Eastleigh Borough Council, concerning a man who had to pay 75p to go swimming, whereas his wife was admitted for free. Darren looks at its relevance in respect of more recent cases regarding the treatment of migrant workers.
Consultant editor Darren Newman explains the importance of the Supreme Court's recent decision in two joined indirect discrimination cases.
The Supreme Court has held that claimants are not required in indirect discrimination claims to explain why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts, or would put, the affected group at a particular disadvantage.
The Supreme Court has held that an incremental pay structure that put Muslim chaplains in the prison service at a disadvantage compared to their Christian colleagues was indirectly discriminatory, but was justified.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.