Dueling discriminations.CAN A HANDSHAKE be grounds for a lawsuit? Perhaps, under a European Union European Union (EU), name given since the ratification (Nov., 1993) of the Treaty of European Union, or Maastricht Treaty, to the European Community directive passed in 2000 requiring member states to crack down on workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation sexual orientation n. The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. , and religion. The United Kingdom passed legislation prohibiting religious discrimination earlier this year, with provisions set to take effect in December. But a report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is the leading professional body for those involved in the field of personnel, training and development. Membership of the CIPD is highly respected and widely accepted by employers as a requirement of practice. (CIPD CIPD Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (UK) CIPD Conferencia Internacional sobre la Población y el Desarrollo (Mexico) CIPD Center for Innovation in Product Development ), a professional association for managers, raises the specter of dueling discrimination lawsuits pitting religions and gender discrimination claims against each other. As an example of a possible conflict, imagine a man whose religious beliefs prohibit contact with women. Does his refusal to shake hands to perform the customary act of civility by clasping and moving hands, as an expression of greeting, farewell, good will, agreement, etc. See also: Shake with female colleagues constitute gender discrimination? Or is it religious discrimination if his female superiors take offense? Under the new legislation, it's not clear, according to according to prep. 1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians. 2. In keeping with: according to instructions. 3. Dianah Worman, head of diversity for CIPD. "The point of the directive wasn't to make one type of discrimination more important than the other," Worman says. "The intention isn't a pecking order.... We'll have to wait until it all comes out. The courts will be the testing ground." In the next few months, employers will be considering the legal implications of having alcohol at work functions and the logistics of allowing employees time for prayer. The legal muddle is due to get cloudier still in 2006,when E.U. members must add a prohibition on age discrimination to the mix. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion