On Linked In I look at popular jargon and unpack it through an Equality Act compliance lens.
A while ago, I looked at micro-aggressions.
What is this from a DEI point of view?
Micro-aggressions (defined in the dictionary as “indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalised group”), while a relevant topic in DEI, can be highly subjective and often surface long after the events occurred.
What is this from EA compliance point of view?
This timing is significant because the Equality Act imposes strict limits on raising claims—typically, three months less a day from the incident in question.
Additionally, for an incident to qualify as harassment under the Equality Act (Section 26(1)), it must involve:
1. Unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic, and
2. Behaviour that intentionally or effectively:
• Violates an individual’s dignity, or
• Creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
A Commonly Overlooked Requirement:
The often-missed subsection, Section 26(4), provides essential criteria to determine if conduct truly constitutes harassment. It specifies that a determination must consider:
• The individual’s perception,
• The broader context, and
• Whether it’s objectively reasonable for the behaviour to be perceived as harassing.
Implications for DEI Practices and practitioners:
The concept of micro-aggressions often lacks the objectivity and legal grounding required under Section 26(4). Without clear, actionable evidence, it may be challenging to meet the standard of “reasonableness” essential in establishing unlawful harassment under the Equality Act.
For DEI efforts to align effectively with legal requirements, organisations might focus on clearer, more objective examples of conduct that meet both DEI and legal standards.