Editorial

Date01 September 2011
Published date01 September 2011
DOI10.1177/1358229111420518
AuthorSusan Easton
Editorial
Susan Easton
The focus in this issue is primarily on anti-discrimination law in the context of
employment and includes discussion of harassment and third party victimization.
Hartmut Frenzel considers whether German anti-discrimination law relating to employ-
ment is structured in such a way that incentives and sanctions direct individuals not to
discriminate. He reviews the General Equal Treatment Act in Germany and assesses its
effectiveness using rational choice theory, and considers the advantages and disadvan-
tages of anti-discrimination law for employers. He also points to the need for more infor-
mation on the impact of discrimination upon employees’ health.
Michael Connolly considers the problem of victimization of third parties and the
problems of obtaining redress in UK employment law given that the revised definition
of victimization in the Equality Act 2010 does not appear to include recovery for third
party victimization. He considers how the problem is dealt with in EU case law and in the
United States under the Civil Rights Act. As he argues, strengthening the law in this area
would have a deterrent effect, especially if the damages are pitched at a high enough
level. Possible alternative solutions in domestic and EU law are considered, but he
argues that the Equality Act should be amended to deal with this issue.
Sam Middlemiss considers the problem of obtaining protection from long-term har-
assment in employment law. He focuses on the recent decision in the Munchkins Restau-
rant Ltd and another v Karmazyn case, in which the employer was found vicariously
liable for the harassment carried out over a period of time by a controlling shareholder,
and considers its implications for the protection of claimants. Its significance lies in the
fact that it recognizes that employees may continue to work in an oppressive workplace
environment for some time, but this should not be seen as their welcoming the behaviour
or as a reason to deny them a remedy. The approach of employment tribunals in similar
cases and their calculation of damages is reviewed. Although the focus is primarily on
Brunel Law School, Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
Corresponding Author:
Susan.Easton@brunel.ac.uk
International Journalof
Discrimination and theLaw
11(3) 107–108
ªThe Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1358229111420518
ijdl.sagepub.com

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT