Discrimination in the workplace, especially regarding employers' choices when dismissing their employees, is a frequent dispute before Employment Tribunals. With reference to the effectiveness of Equality Act 2010, critically evaluate this statement.

Introduction:Despite the ‘increasingly sophisticated anti-discrimination laws’[1] of the ‘fourth generation’,[2] discrimination in the workplace resiliently persisted. The Equality Act 2010 (EqA) tackled this by prescribing a set of ‘prohibited conducts’[3] and ‘protected characteristics’[4] (PCs) ensuring that workplace decision-making when employers dismiss employees is pursued ‘wholly meritocratically’.[5] Nevertheless, problems regarding the EqA’s protective scope forced the judiciary and commentators to argue for extending the current list of prohibited conducts and ‘static’[6] PCs to reflect the reasonable adjustments duty found in disability discrimination[7] and Art.14 ECHR.[8] Accordingly, by referencing socio-legal policy justifications such as access to justice, dignity, and social inclusion, this essay will analyse the EqA’s protective effectiveness, contributions, and drawbacks within recent dismissal caselaw regarding the prohibited conducts in issues concerning: 1-disability discrimination and its new prohibited conducts; 2-justifying age discrimination; and 3-race discrimination in circumstances of contractual illegalities and inadequate immigration status; 4-religious discrimination and the ‘group-based’ requirement. Overall, this essay argues that whilst the EqA’s impacts on the current regime have been a good first step, reform is needed to increase its protective standards. This can be done by replacing the current ‘inappropriate … contractual model’[9] of employment, by extending the current list of PCs,[10] and by introducing prohibited conducts reflecting those in disability discrimination.[11] Indeed, this will enhance the EqA’s protective effectiveness whilst facilitating employees’ access to justice.[1] S. Fredman, ‘Breaking the Mold: Equality as a Proactive Duty’ (2012) A.J.C.L. 265, [266].[2] B. Hepple, Equality: The New Legal Framework (Hart Publishing, 2014), [1-3].[3] Pt.2 Ch.1.[4] s.4(1).[5] D. Cabrelli, Employment Law in Context:Text and Materials (OUP, 2016), [351-352].[6] ibid, [412-415].[7] T. Khaitan, ‘A Theory of Discrimination Law’ (OUP, 2015), [76-79].[8] ‘Any other status’.[9] B. Langstaff, ‘Changing Times, Changing Relationships At Work ... Changing Law?’ (2016) I.L.J.131, [142-143].[10] Hepple (n2), [94-97].[11] ibid.