9.05.2018

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_100x100 1
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

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye…
When the employment relationship comes to an end, for whatever reason, there are still a few boxes to be ticked. So what needs to be done before you can bid each other a (hopefully) fond farewell?
5.11.2018 Posted in Employment Law
WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd: The Competent Contractor?
Defining health and safety duties in a contracting situation is rarely straightforward.
1.11.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Managing Partner Honoured with German Award
Erich Bachmann, the Managing Partner of Auckland based commercial law firm Hesketh Henry, has been awarded the Cross of the Order of Merit with Ribbon of the Federal Republic of Germany (Verdienstkreu...
30.10.2018
Building and Construction Law Journal
Construction partner, Nick Gillies, has been published in the latest Building and Construction Law Journal ((2018) 34 BCL 179).
18.10.2018 Posted in Construction Law
EBERT CONSTRUCTION: RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION
Introduction Following our Initial Note, the receivers of Ebert Construction Ltd (Ebert) released their first report on 1 October 2018.  Then, on 3 October 2018, Ebert put itself into liquidation, wi...
Pruning Back Liability: Do Contractual Arrangements Hold the Key?
The first defended hearing under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), WorkSafe v Athenberry Holdings Ltd, required the District Court to consider the ability of a business (a PCBU) to influe...
9.10.2018 Posted in Health & Safety Law
Negotiating The Best Incentives For Korean Companies
Hesketh Henry Special Counsel, Hak Jun Lee  recently presented at the 2018 IAKL conference on “ Negotiating the best incentives for Korean companies “. The topic included:  Current trends f...
9.10.2018 Posted in Foreign Investment
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.