Is giving less annual leave and paid sick leave discrimination?

I think if you were to hire other new starters and put them on the same reduced leave and sick leave you'd be in a better position, although it doesn't sound like new terms are in effect for all new starters going forward.

Bear in mind as well that someone who is disabled may not disclose this from the outset and many disabilities aren't "visible", so there could be discrimination on these grounds too.

As Keith has already said, the question is being able to demonstrate the 'real' reason for different employment conditions for someone who is the only employee in a particular racial group - not an easy thing to do. If the employee chooses to challenge the decision, since race is a "protected characteristic" under the Employment Act, no length of service is required and there is no limit on the award that a tribunal could make. Unless you have other people with similar reduced conditions you will have difficulty building a credible defense in the event of a claim.......

OK, thanks very much Keith- this has been really helpful.

Thanks a lot for the help Ray, will bear this in mind.

Hi Ruth,

As you have not done this because of a protected characteristic it is not discrimination, as others have said, but the onus is then on you though to prove it is not. This may be clear now but may be lost in the mists of time unless documented. In the future people may leave, he may raise this and no one will understand the justification. My question would be - is there another way to do this? Can you hold back on bonus or pay (unless it's too late as you have already communicated those terms) until he meets the bar? But also - why would you want to do this? Treating someone differently regarding common terms can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences or mistakes with benefits etc, and can engender a feeling of 'otherness' for the individual which they may attribute to race anyway. If you choose to go down this route consider putting in a timescale for review, particularly when he starts performing at the level the role requires so he is not treated unfavourably when he gets there.

Is this discrimination? As other colleagues have said, probably not if you can evidence a genuine justification.

Is this good business practice? Also probably not.

Why would a business seek to implement these lower benefits on one single employee, especially one with a protected characteristic? The savings that could be made on a few days holiday and sick pay (that may never be claimed) are likely minimal while the risk of a potential discrimination claim is high. And as you've said, "salary represents/ reflects the level of competency of each employee" - that is the most common method of reflecting someone's level of experience.

For me I wouldn't think the savings merited the risk.

Thanks for the advice Victoria, much appreciated!

Thanks a lot Owen- think you've hit the nail on the head!

Hi Ruth,

I think you've received some really top advice from some very experienced contributors here.

I agree with all of them... and I think Victoria and Owen sum up well.

Hope this first sojourn to the Community has been valuable to you.

Hi Steve,

Yes, thanks to everyone for the responses....it has been very valuable!

Ruth