Editor's message: The law on sex discrimination is embodied in the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation because of the protected characteristic of sex.
The concept of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 is very wide. As well as the less favourable treatment of a person because of his or her own sex, direct sex discrimination extends to less favourable treatment because of a person's perceived sex, even where that perception is wrong. This could occur, for example, where an employer rejects a CV from a man who it wrongly believes to be a woman because of his name.
Direct sex discrimination also covers the situation where a person is treated less favourably because of someone else’s sex, for example because of the sex of his or her colleagues, friends or relatives.
Jeya Thiruchelvam, senior employment law editor
Requirements for women to wear high heels, make-up and a skirt were common in the 1970s, but do such requirements have any place in a 21st-century employer's dress code? In this week's podcast, we discuss the recent controversy around sexism in workplace dress codes.
In this week's podcast, we explore the steps that you can take to reduce the risk of having an indirectly discriminatory provision, criterion or practice. We also discuss what to take into account when deciding whether or not indirect discrimination can be justified.
Fathers face a negative bias when seeking a better work-life balance or applying for part-time employment, a new study suggests.
When receptionist Nicola Thorp was sent home from an assignment for wearing flat shoes it created a flurry of debate and a subsequent parliamentary inquiry. Now the results of the inquiry have been published, what does this mean for employers who operate uniform or dress code policies?
Updated to include information on Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, a personal injury case that may have implications for discriminatory behaviour by employees towards colleagues or third parties.
Employers that enforce sexist dress codes could be in line for stricter punishment and fines, if the Government follows recommendations set out in a new report.
This employment tribunal held, in White v Propharma Group MIS Ltd, that the employer had not indirectly discriminated against a female employee by requiring her to remove potential interruptions while working at home by arranging childcare.
In this well-publicised case, easyJet's refusal to limit the shift lengths of two cabin crew who were breastfeeding led to awards for indirect sex discrimination totalling almost £35,000.
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 reflect the latest gender pay gap figures, as reported in the Annual survey of hours and earnings 2016.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex discrimination.