Critically assess how effective employment law is as a means of altering social attitudes.
LABOUR LAW COURSEWORK
BY ADRIAN SHUM.
TITLE:
Critically assess how effective employment law is as a means of altering social attitudes.
To assess how effective employment law is a means of altering social attitudes I aim to thoroughly examine whether respective legislation has sufficiently enabled women to enter and progress in professional employment on an equal footing with men. Hence, has there been a lifting of the so called 'glass ceiling', which Browne defines as,
"An invisible barrier of discrimination which makes it difficult for women to reach the same top level in their chosen careers as men."1
Alternatively, I aim to evaluate, does the mere avoidance of discrimination carry with it little prospect of significant overall improvement in the socio-economic position of women. Thus, is there a need in the UK for more proactive measures such as legislation permitting or even obliging positive discrimination and compulsory affirmative/positive action, to remove the inequalities that remain.
Before doing as such I feel it is imperative to differentiate between and explain what positive discrimination and affirmative/positive action are.
Positive discrimination is where for example an employer restricts applicants for a particular job to women or automatically appoints a woman, and the only reason for such is that women may be underrepresented in the position in question.2
The definition of positive or affirmative action3 is potentially problematic. There are at least three interrelated types of objective. First many policies are directed towards the identification of policies and practices that may disadvantage women and ethnic minorities in the workplace. However, this is no more than acting to ensure that there is no direct or indirect discrimination. A second type of positive action concerns the organisation of work and the workplace. This category includes the development of policies to reconcile home and work, such as maternity and child care policies, career break schemes, etc. The third focus, often source of greatest controversy, is on positive action to overcome the fact that, in many jobs, women and ethnic minorities are under-represented. This may vary from outreach programmes designed to increase the number of applications from members of groups perceived to be disadvantaged, through the provisions of training designed to promote competition on a level playing field with white males. To programmes which take account of the actual numbers performing such jobs, whether in the form of aims or targets, or in the form of quotas whereby a particular proportion of jobs in a particular grade are reserved for women or ethnic minorities.4
Women have always been in lower status jobs than their male counterparts. This is largely due to social attitudes that have built up over many decades and even centuries, as Clements and Spinks state,
"Some of the most deep-rooted of all fixed attitudes are those concerning the type of roles that women should fulfil and the positions that they should be allowed to hold in our society."5
Gender differences are reinforced from childhood right through to adulthood. Females are subjected to strong messages about gentleness and motherhood. Whereas males are taught to be macho, powerful and have interests such as science, construction, and engineering.
As early as the 18th century women, only occupied basic positions in the labour market such as in textiles and nursing, participation in senior roles was non-existent. Discrimination was overtly present at this early stage, as Heaker states,
" A combination of pressures from male workers and philanthropic reformers restricted females progressing. Men perceived women as a rival group and made use of economic, legal and ideological weapons to eliminate or reduce their competition."6
The very first legislative attempt to enhance women's status was the Sex Disqualification Removal Act 1919. However, this Act had very limited effect, as it only removed existing bars on women entering certain professions; employers could still refuse employment on grounds of sex.7
Come the 1970's continuous feminist demands upon the state for equity in paid work, the European Economic Community's pressure on the UK to enforce previous United Nations International agreement on equal opportunities, as well as numerous private members bills requiring change. Led the new Labour government of 1974 to issue a white paper called 'Equality for Women' and a few months after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA 1975) became law.8 The SDA 1975 was undoubtedly revolutionary as it was the first piece of legislation for over two generation, which aimed to give women permanent equality of access to and opportunities within the full range of men's jobs in peace time. Obliging employers to recruit, train, and promote employees on the basis of their individual qualities and qualifications, irrespective of sex or marriage.9
The SDA 1975, prohibits direct10 and indirect11 discrimination, undoubtedly these measures are useful provisions that have helped women retain and acquire employment, as well as encourage women to seek employment in areas that they may not previously have done so. However, the SDA 1975 is concerned with equality of access, not of outcomes and firmly embeds the 'merit' principle. This assumes that if women and other targeted groups fail to secure the most attractive jobs it is because of the disadvantaged groups unsuitability and not because of discrimination12. The SDA makes it illegal for women to be given priority at the point of selection, which would be considered as positive discrimination. Hence, restricting selection lists in several constituencies in the case of Jepson and Dyas Elliot v The Labour Party13, to women only, in an attempt to increase female MP's amounted to positive discrimination and was therefore unlawful.
Provision for positive action are also very limited in the SDA 1975, to only allowing employers to provide single-sex training courses for non-traditional areas and encouraging women to apply for jobs in occupations where they are underrepresented, s.47 SDA 1975. Furthermore, these provisions in all the circumstances are permissive rather than mandatory, unlike the law in Northern Ireland14 USA15, Canada16, South Africa17, and Australia.18 British employers are never under a positive obligation to engage in any affirmative action, from the mildest forms of encouragement upwards.
Figures from the Department of Employment for the period 1985-93, showed that women made up only 2% of senior managers, 6% of MP's, 8% of senior executives in business and 2 % of general surgeons.19
The National Management Salary Survey of 1996 did highlight that the proportion of females in management continues to rise, but at the most senior level women were found to comprise less than 4% of senior directors.20 The Hansard Society put forward a similar view highlighting there has been some progress for women, however they remain hampered by glass ceilings and hemmed in by glass walls, restricting their earnings and blocking them from reaching the operational roles at the heart of each corporation.21
Recent statistics from the Price Waterhouse Corporate Register 1999 clearly indicate that over two decades ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The National Management Salary Survey of 1996 did highlight that the proportion of females in management continues to rise, but at the most senior level women were found to comprise less than 4% of senior directors.20 The Hansard Society put forward a similar view highlighting there has been some progress for women, however they remain hampered by glass ceilings and hemmed in by glass walls, restricting their earnings and blocking them from reaching the operational roles at the heart of each corporation.21
Recent statistics from the Price Waterhouse Corporate Register 1999 clearly indicate that over two decades on from the introduction of the SDA 1975, women are still significantly underrepresented at a professional level. For example the Register shows that women made up only 4% of Directors and senior managers in top 2300 UK companies, 18% of Barristers and 9% of Senior civil servants (top three grades).22
These cross-sections of statistics would indeed appear to indicate that the SDA 1975 has not been effective in ascertaining sex equality in professional employment. The SDA 1975 would appear to have sent a message to society, women cannot be overtly discriminated against and that they are entitled and need to play an active role in the labour market. Nevertheless, the SDA 1975 has clearly had limited influence in changing social attitudes towards the types of positions that women should hold within the labour market.
It is also essential to assess the influence of European Union (EU) law, in this case Article 2 (1)23 and 2 (4)24 of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207, with regards to positive action. As EU, law is of supremacy25 over domestic legislation and much of it is of direct effect.26
The provisions within Article 2 (4) do permit positive action, but only to raise the starting threshold for women. Positive action can only be used to remove obstacles preventing women from having equal opportunities by tackling, for example, educational guidance and vocational training. Positive action may not guarantee women absolute and unconditional priority for appointment or promotion. Thus in Kanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen27, German law giving equally qualified women preference against men in selection for public sector jobs in which women were underrepresented was unlawful under Article 2 (4).28
However, in the subsequent cases of Marschall v. Land Nordrhein Westfalen29 and Re: Badeck's Application30, it was held that giving priority to the underrepresented sex is legal under Article 2 (4). So long as the national rules do not impose an automatic quota and contain a saving clause, that all candidates will be subject to an objective assessment. Which will take account of all criteria specific to the individual candidates and will override the priority accorded to the female candidate where one or more of the criteria tilts in favour of the male candidate. This judgement does indicate a more pragmatic approach by the ECJ to the issue of positive action.
However, the more radical forms of positive action stated in my introduction are neither permitted nor obliged by EU law. Therefore, it may be concluded that in this instance EU law has played little role if any at all in eradicating the sex inequalities within the professional labour market of the UK. This seems quite surprising given that one of the fundamental aims of the EC Treaty, as stated in Article 2 is " social protection and equality between men and women".31
Therefore, can true sex equality within the professional labour market only be attained by introducing a pro-active form of affirmative action as is in operation in other countries?
The Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation set out a design of optimal regulation which could help reduce, if not eliminate, under-representation, exclusion, and institutional barriers to equal opportunity.32 In their opinion paper the two main strategies were considered practicable and possibly effective,
* Voluntary self-regulation, which is based on the individual organisation meeting prescribed standards unilaterally without any threat of coercion.
* Command and control by an independent public agency that sets the standards which organisations are required to meet, and enforces them through investigation and legal proceedings. This model replicates compulsory affirmative action schemes in other countries.
Voluntarism seldom works in isolation where it is not supported by some form of regulatory enforcement. Codes of practice on disability and age discrimination clearly highlight this. In the former the codes are statutory and can be used in proceedings under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in the later the codes are non-statutory. Employers admitted the voluntary codes of practice were ineffective, as none of them had taken measures to combat age discrimination despite acknowledging it's a major problem. Codes on disability were praised by employers because of their practical recommendations which, were backed by the force of law.33 Similarly, in the 1960's voluntary attempts to encourage 40 organisations in the UK, to change racial discriminatory practices failed, as there was no real pressure to change entrenched managerial practices.
However, some organisations in the UK have initiated their own voluntary affirmative action schemes that have been very successful. For example, the Halifax Plc's 'Fairs Fair Programme'34 and a similar initiative by the Cabinet, Foreign, and Commonwealth Offices'.
The Halifax's scheme has increased the percentage of female senior managers from 7% in 1990 to 26% in 1999. Female middle manager also increased from 25% to 42% during the same period.35 The Cabinet Office raised its proportion of women members of public bodies from less than a quarter (23%) in 1997, to more than a third (38%) in 1998. The proportion of female appointees at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office went up from one quarter to more than a third in the same period.36
So, if these organisations can initiate their own voluntary schemes, why can't a voluntary-self-regulation scheme work on a national level? Holterman suggests,
"A voluntary approach may work in influencing the behaviour of some organisations, a leading edge company whose markets are among a underrepresented group will readily want to project an equality policy, but not others who for economic or social reasons are resistant to change".37
This would indeed seem to be the case Halifax is one of the UK's most established providers of financial services. The Halifax has 20 million customers (two in five households), 3.4 million shareholders, and 37,000 members of staff. Thus, such an organisation will heighten and retain it status by projecting an image regarding its desire for equality for all. Similarly, government departments are also organisations whose best interests are in portraying themselves to the public as being actively in favour of and taking a significant role in promoting equal opportunity.
As Jenkins states, "Such measures enhance political appeal"38
Clearly all UK companies and organisations have no such drive that would make them adhere to a self-regulatory voluntary affirmative action scheme.
Thus, it has to be considered whether the only way to break the glass ceiling in the UK, is via a compulsory affirmative action scheme. However, are such schemes effective; are they enforceable and who monitors them?
The first compulsory affirmative action scheme was in the USA, which was initiated in 1961, with the issuing of Executive Order 10925.39 The current Order 1224640 applies to about 300,000 Federal Contractors employing about 40% of the working population. The contractors are obliged to develop a written affirmative action programme that will identify problems regarding under-representation. The contractor must then institute an action-orientated programme with realistic goals aimed at increasing the representation of equally qualified women and minorities.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programmes (OFCCP) carries out enforcement of the Order. If an employer violates their obligation by failing to implement an affirmative action plan or by simply paying lip service to it. The OFCCP will come to a formal conciliation agreement setting out a time span in which set requirements must be met. Failure to comply after this will result in the OFCCP directly enforcing the Order, or having legal sanctions placed upon the defaulting employer. This would prevent them from being eligible for further contracts as well as forfeiture of payments on current contracts.
The deterrent has proved extremely powerful along with the threat of bad publicity that goes with it. In over 40 years, only 36 employers have suffered the maximum penalty.
All the employers interviewed in the US stated that affirmative action was the most influential requirement in their organisation.41 Without which they would not have been motivated nor have had the will or initiative to increase the representation of women and minorities through their organisation on the scale they had done so. The strength of this belief can be summed by an Equal Opportunity manager who stated,
"We have doubled our representation of women and minorities since adopting affirmative action plans in the 1970's, we are now as diverse as we can be."42
Actual statistics back up the success of affirmative action in the USA, for example a study by Murrel and Jones reported: "Six million women have received opportunities in employment and education directly because of affirmative action programs. Between 1970 and 1990, the proportion of women physicians doubled from 7.6% to 16.9%. From 1972 to 1979 -- the years when affirmative action programs were most vigorously enforced -- the number of women becoming accountants, lawyers and judges, and school administrators increased substantially. And during the 10-year period between 1985-95 the overall number of professional women grew 125%.43
The US experience with affirmative action has been influential in several other counties namely, Canada44, where the concept of 'employment equity is used'45, as well as in Australia46 and South Africa47. Of greatest relevance in the UK (i.e. in Northern Ireland) is the Fair Employment Act 1989, which obliges employers with more than 10 full-time employees to carry out periodic reviews to ensure fair participation of Roman Catholic and Protestants communities.48 Statistics must be forwarded to the Equal Opportunity Commission for Northern Ireland (EOCNI).49 If there are significant inequalities, a duty to engage in affirmative action containing appropriate goals and timetables for securing of an improvement is triggered.
Employers in Northern Ireland unanimously agree that fair employment legislation has made a fundamental difference to equal opportunities. As one Equal Opportunity manager states,
" The requirement to monitor and prepare action plans to reduce under-representation by a deadline was very important, 'the key driver', and absolutely crucial to make things happen.50
The House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, also put forward a positive view, reporting that there has been a high level of compliance by employers of their statutory duties which have led to considerable improvements in equality based employment.51
These experiences indeed indicate that compulsory affirmative action does in fact reverse discriminatory practices and inequalities in labour market, this is backed up by Kivel who states,
"Affirmative action works. There are thousands of examples of situations where people of colour, white women, and working class women and men of all races who were previously excluded from jobs opportunities, have gained access and status through affirmative action."52
However, this is by no means to say that affirmative action is without problems and free from criticism, therefore these should be examined.
Clabaugh states " opportunities based on ascribed characteristics such as sex and race rather than achieved characteristics is unjust."53
However, as the OFCCP point out affirmative action does not require an employer to hire an under-represented person who lacks qualifications to perform the job successfully, in preference to a more qualified person from a non-discriminated group.54 Furthermore, in today's society there are no shortages of equally qualified women, whom may occupy senior professional positions in the UK. Statistics from 1999 showed that an almost equal number of male and female graduates left university with a 2.1 degree or above in disciplines such as economics, law and medicine.55
It has been argued affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination, though in the US on average only 2% of discrimination cases each year allege reverse discrimination against white males and very few are upheld as meritorious. McElroy points out employers feel obliged to set quotas, as the cost of swimming against affirmative action can be very high. Companies such as Sears who implemented affirmative action programmes but still had under-representation of women have been heavily sued. Thus, the market place in self-defence has often adopted a de facto quota system that protects it against charges of discrimination.56 I feel that if goals or targets are to be met, there will be a degree of reverse discrimination especially if failure to meet these goals would result in serious penalties. However, writers such as Froomkin even defend this criticism by stating,
"Granting modest advantages to women and minorities is more than fair given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men."57
A major criticism on the part of employers is that affirmative action schemes are costly and bureaucratic to set up and monitor. Employers in Northern Ireland and the US echoed these concerns. However, in both counties employers agreed that most of these fears were unfounded and the gains out weighed the disadvantages.
There is general support in the UK for an inclusive, pro-active and non-adversarial approach to achieve employment equity or fair participation. Trade Unions, The Confederation of British Industry, organisations representing those adversely affected by discrimination and even employers themselves favour positive legal duties in the public and private sectors, in respect of sex and race. However, many organisations feel these duties should be in the form of prescribed legal guidelines as opposed to compulsory and monitored. As discussed only compulsory and monitored schemes have been successful. Therefore, it is only worthwhile introducing affirmative action in the UK if the is to be the case. Additionally to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic requirements it has been suggested that compliance statistics could be reported in a company's annual report. As opposed to, annual returns to the EOC on a prescribed form.58 Sanctions for failure to conduct a periodic review or to attain reasonable goals could include legal bars, fines, or a possible name and shame penalty as Australian legislation permits.59
Legislation that came in over a quarter of a century ago has not helped attain sex equality in professional employment. Gone are the days where a woman at the wheel of a bus would turn heads. However, equality for women in senior economic, legal and managerial positions has not occurred and social attitudes regarding women's capabilities of being in such positions are still highly negative. Thus, commentators such as McDowell, Singal and Zalik are correct in saying,
"In the UK there is still the sexual division of labour with women in lower paid and lower status jobs."60
Julie Mellor chair of the EOC adds,
"It is in incredible that after 25 years of sex discrimination legislation, so many peoples lives are still shaped by outdated assumptions about the roles they should play in society just because of their sex."61
Therefore, it maybe concluded that if women are to be equally represented in professional employment and social attitudes are to be shifted regarding women's status in employment further action is needed. A realistic way to slowly start attaining this is via compulsory affirmative action in the form prescribed in the US and Northern Ireland. As the EOCNI states,
"Imposition of a statutory obligation on employers in the UK to take positive measures to address inequalities of opportunities is an essential ingredient in ensuring future equality between men and women".62
As discussed, affirmative action does have problems and acceptance of such a scheme will inevitably prove difficult, as any attempt to alter the status in society is met with hostility. Especially where it is the status quo who, are the ones likely to loose out from such a scheme.
Affirmative action is not a quick fix that will instantaneously redress the inequalities that women have faced in the labour markets for centuries. Any scheme needs to be carefully planned and initiated with detailed and realistic goals, which over several years or even decades will slowly redress existing inequalities. As well as start to change social attitudes, so that future generations regard it a norm for women to be in high positions in the labour market and not unusual. It is true that any legislation can only go so far and parallel action will always be needed by industry and other concerned bodies, to counteract the prejudicial effects on women in employment which arises from social attitudes, behaviour and structure. However, I feel that affirmative action is possibly the push that employers in the UK need to make them realise the time for genuine equality and change has come.
However, affirmative action by no means is a mechanism that will eradicate discrimination against women from all areas of society. I would however conclude by saying that affirmative action can if properly initiated, be a very useful piece in the jigsaw against discrimination of women in the UK. As well as a useful means of changing social attitudes.
Browne Ken, Sociology, second edition, Polity Press 1997. Page 107.
2 Contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA 1975), as will be discussed below.
3 I shall use the term positive action and affirmative action interchangeably; in general the former is the more common British usage and the latter the more common American usage.
4 Townshend-Smith J. Richards, Discrimination Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Cavendish Publishing Limited 2000, page 540.
5 Clements Phil and Spinks Tony, The Equal Opportunity Handbook, Kogan Page Limited 2000, page 63
6 Haralambos Mike and Holborn Martin, Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, Collins Educational, Fourth Edition 1997, page 424.
7 Pitt Gwenth, Employment Law, Sweet and Maxwell 2000 Fourth Edition, page 31.
8 Additionally, the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) was set up under s.53 SDA to monitor and evaluate the progress of the Act's implementation.
9 Brias Celia, Working for Women? Gendered Work and Welfare Polices in Twentieth Century Britain, UCL Press 1997, page 117.
0 Defined in Section 1 (1) SDA 1995, 'A person discriminates against the other if on the grounds of sex the person treats the other less favorably than they treat other persons of a different sex'.
1 Defined in Section 1 (1)(b) SDA 1975, as 'applying a requirement or condition to all employees, but the proportion of any particular sex who can comply with the condition is considerably smaller than the proportion of those outside the sex who can comply, and the employer can not justify that requirement, and the complainants inability to comply with requirement is to their detriment'. Edwards v London Underground (No. 2) 1999. ICR 494.
2 Brias Celia, Working for Women? Gendered Work and Welfare Polices in Twentieth Century Britain, UCL Press 1997, page 119.
3 I.L.R. 116, IT 1996.
4 Fair Employment Act 1989 now Part IIV of FETO 1998.
5 Executive Order 10925 now replaced by Executive Order 11246.
6 Employment Equity Act 1995 (Canada).
7 Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999
8 Employment Equity Act, No.55 of 1998. (These respective pieces of legislation will be discussed in-depth below).
9 As cited in, Selfe Paul, Sociology Patterns and Trends, 10th Edition 1998, page 42.
20 Equal Opportunity Review, 'News', 'Rise in Women Managers', EOR No.68 July/August 1996, page 4.
21 Equal Opportunity Review, 'News, 'Limited Progress for Top Women say Hansard Society', EOR No.67 May/June 1998, page 7.
22 Labour Research (January 1999); Price Waterhouse Corporate Register, 'Women at the Top update' (Hansard Society).
23 Article 2 (1) of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 reads ' For the purposes of the following provisions the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status.
24 Article 2 (4) of the Equal treatment Directive 76/207 reads 'This Directive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities referred to in Article 1 (1).
25 Costa v. ENEL, (Case 6/64) [1964] E.C.R. 585 [1964] C.M.L.R.
26 Enables an EU citizen to enforce EU law within national courts.
27 (Case C-450/93) [1996] 1 C.M.L.R. 175
28 Equal Opportunity Review, 'Documents' 'Kalanke Amendment', EOR No. 68 July/August 1996, page 39.
29 (Case C-409/95) [1997] E.C.R. I-6363; [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 547
30 I.R.L.R. 432. [2000]
31 Foster Nigel, EC Legislation 2000-2001, 11th edition, Blackstones Eleventh edition 2000, page 2.
32 Hepple B., Coussey M., Choudhury T., Equality: A New Framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart Publishing 2000. Page 56.
33 Hepple B., Coussey M., Choudhury T., Equality: A New Framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart Publishing 2000. Pages 56-57.
34 Equal Opportunity Review, 'Fairs Fair-achieving equal opportunities at Halifax plc.' EOR No.94, November/December 2000, page 20.
35 Equal Opportunity Review, 'Fairs Fair-achieving equal opportunities at Halifax plc.', EOR No.94, November/December 2000, page 21.
36 Equal Opportunity Review, 'News' 'Some progress in public jobs', EOR No.86 July/August 1999, page 7.
37 Holterman S., 'The costs and benefits to British employers of measures to promote equality of opportunity', in Rubery J., The Economics of Equal Opportunities, Manchester EOC 1995, page 141.
38 Jenkins R., 'Equal Opportunity in the private sector: the limits of voluntarism', in Jenkins R., and Solomos J., Racism and Equal Opportunity Policies in the 1980's, Cambridge 1987, page 113.
39 President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 in 1961, which obliged employers to take positive measures to increase representation of racial minorities.
40 President Johnson issued Executive Order 12246 in 1964, amended in 1967 to cover sex and religion.
41 Interviews were held in six large US Corporations. Discussions at a two-day meeting of the ORC Workplace Opportunity Network in New York also produced relevant information on experience in the USA. Hepple B., Coussey M., Choudhury T., Equality: A New Framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart Publishing 2000.
42 Hepple B., Coussey M., Choudhury T., Equality: A New Framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart Publishing 2000.
43 Murrel J and Jones E., ACLU: Briefing Paper on California affirmative action, 1996, As cited at www.huppi.com
44 Employment Equity Act 1995 (Canada) (which came into force in October 1996).
45 Employment Equity Act 1995 (Canada), Section 2.
46 Equal Opportunity for women in the Workplace Act 1999, which consolidates with amendments the earlier Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act No.91 of 1986.
47 Employment Equity Act, No.55 of 1998.
48 These obligations with significant amendments are now contained in Part VII of the Fair Employment and Equal Treatment Order 1998 (FETO 1998).
49 Formerly know as the Fair Employment Commission (FEC).
50 Hepple B., Coussey M., Choudhury T., Equality: A New Framework, Report of the Independent Review of the Enforcement of UK Anti-Discrimination Legislation, Hart Publishing 2000.
51 House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Fourth Report (1999), paragraph 48, cited at www.gov.uk
52 Kivel Paul, 'Affirmative Action Works' 'In Defence of Affirmative Action', www.inmotionmagine.com
53 Clabaugh K. Gary, 'Positive Discrimination', Educational Horizons. Spring 2000.
54 OFCCP, 'What is Affirmative Action at OFCCP?' page 3. www.what_isaffirmativeaction.htm,
55 Cited at www.statistics.gov.uk Higher Education 'statbase'. An average of 47% women had a 2.1 degree or above in these disciplines.
56 McElroy Wendy, 'What Does Affirmative Action Affirm?' page 3, www.zetetics.com.
57 Froom Kin Dan, 'Affirmative Action Under Attack: Affirmative Action Special Report', page 1, www.washingtonpost.com.
58 In the USA annual returns must be filled on form EE01, and in Northern Ireland on an annual monitoring return.
59 Australian Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act, s.19.
60 McDowell M. John, Singell D. Larry, and Zalik P James, 'Gender and Promotion in the Economic Professions', Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 54, No.2 (January 2001).
61 Equal Opportunity Review, 'News' 'Sex inequality still deeply rooted', EOR No. 95 January/February 2000, page 5.
62 Equal Opportunity Review, 'Features' 'Changing Sex Equality Law: EOCNI proposal for reform', EOR. No.69 September/October 1996, page 9.
