19.07.2016

Discrimination in the workplace – here we go again!

Just a quick refresher on discrimination.

The recent article in the New Zealand Herald about a job applicant who was apparently denied the chance of a job interview due to her wearing a hijab provoked a feeling of déjà vu.  It is disappointing that yet again, this issue has arisen.  Surely, surely, employers know by now that discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs or ethnic or national origins is, in almost all circumstances, unlawful, and simply unacceptable?

The employer in question has apologised for the actions of its manager, and been at pains to point out that it does not condone discrimination in any way.  However, it is a little disturbing to think that there are some people in positions of responsibility who, apparently, aren’t aware of their obligations.

So, just a quick refresher on discrimination.

It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of the prohibited grounds in the Human Rights Act 1993, including religious or ethical belief, or ethnic or national origins.  This applies in employment when:

  • Recruiting (including asking interview questions, advertising, and job application forms)
  • Employing (or refusing to do so)
  • Giving less favourable terms and conditions of employment or opportunities; for example, for promotion, training, etc
  • Terminating employment
  • Requiring retirement

There are limited exceptions in relation to national security, reasons of authenticity or privacy (for example, providing counselling on highly personal matters), domestic or live-in employment (like a nanny), and religious employment (it is reasonable to expect a Catholic priest to be Catholic).

With regard to an employee wearing items of religious, cultural or ethnic significance (a hijab for example, or a cross, or even tâ moko), it is generally unacceptable for an employer to prevent employees wearing or displaying items of genuine significance.   But there are exceptions.  Genuine safety considerations (for example, a swinging crucifix may be caught in a machine) may provide a lawful reason for an employer to ask an employee not to wear such an item at work.

Where there is a uniform or dress code requirement, the Human Rights Commission’s advice is to use common sense – if the uniform can be adjusted slightly to accommodate both the employer and the employee’s needs, this will obviously be preferable to a hard and fast rule prohibiting employees wearing items of significance.  This fits with the provision in the Human Rights Act 1993 which limits the use of exceptions and provides that employers need to adjust their activities to accommodate the employee’s ability to carry out the duties, so long as this does not unreasonably disrupt the employer’s business.   For example, many employers with a uniform will allow employees to wear cultural or religious items (hijab, turban, etc) in the company’s colours.

As with so many things (particularly in employment), common sense and communication is key.  Employers and employees should discuss the situation, and try to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

If you have any questions about your Human Rights obligations, or any other aspect of employment law, please give us a call.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

iStock
Parker v Magnum Hire: A new era of personal grievance remedies awarded in the Employment Relations Authority?
If you heard a sudden loud noise last week – no it wasn’t a jet plane flying overhead, it was the gasp of employment lawyers across New Zealand when the Employment Relations Authority published it...
26.02.2024 Posted in Employment
employment dictionary website
Banding together: the Court’s new approach to awards for injury to feelings
One of the key remedies available to an employee who has successfully established a personal grievance in the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) or the Employment Court (Court) is compensation...
23.02.2024 Posted in Employment
Trust liability under the Health and Safety at Work Act
WorkSafe New Zealand v RH & JY Trust & ors
21.02.2024 Posted in Health & Safety & Private Wealth
New year, new government, new policies: what’s on the cards for employment law in 2024?
As we have been known to say once or twice (okay, maybe every year!) employment law never stands still. New governments can also spell major change, and this time is no exception. As you will likely h...
14.02.2024 Posted in Business Advice & Employment
Family Hands Paper Dolls Wide BW
Variations of Trust: Court’s Position Confirmed
Last year we published an article titled Variations of Trust: Obtaining the Court’s Blessing on the High Court decision in Re Jury Family Trusts [2022] NZHC 568 (Re Jury). In Re Jury, the High C...
05.02.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
Employment Law Wide
Trials and tribulations of trial periods – what an employer needs to know
If, like us, you were doing last minute Christmas shopping, you might have missed that the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Act 2023 (Act) received Royal Assent and came into effect shor...
19.01.2024 Posted in Employment
iStock  Warning Speech Bubble Colour
A warning about warnings
It can be tempting for an employer to think that it is only a dismissal that requires a disciplinary process, and that a warning or a final warning can be issued simply by notifying the employee.  Be...
13.12.2023 Posted in Employment
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.