At first glance the two laws may look broadly similar, they both cover the same basic forms of discrimination, being direct, indirect, harassment and victimisation. They also are based around a series of protected characteristics, including race, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, age and disability – albeit the proposed Guernsey law does have a few other grounds. However, beyond that superficial similarity, the approach that Jersey took and the approach that Guernsey is now proposing to take is markedly different. To take one example, Jersey currently caps compensation in respect of discrimination claims at GBP10,000 overall and only GBP5,000 of that can relate to injury to feelings. The consequence of this has been that whilst there have been a number of claims brought in Jersey, the majority of those have actually involved smaller local employers, rather than against those in the finance sector who tend to employ the higher earners. Under the proposals put forward in Guernsey, the potential caps range from GBP5,000 up to GBP100,000 (or even potentially no upper limit) on either financial loss or injury to feelings, with the likelihood it is going to be towards the top end of that scale. This inevitably is going to make it more appealing to litigate in Guernsey given the remedies available.

Certainly the most contentious element of the proposals in Guernsey is the extent of the definition of a disability. In short, under the proposals any condition, disease, illness or impairment, no matter how brief, nor regardless of its level of impact on the individual, will amount to a disability. To place that into context, whilst the obvious disabilities and conditions that people would traditionally expect to be covered will be caught, so would all forms of stress or anxiety, and even arguably if someone is simply hungover. It should be remembered that this is only a public consultation and the reason for this is to allow the States of Guernsey to address areas where the proposals are not right. However, this proposal is far broader than Jersey’s equivalent definition which only captures a “long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which can adversely affect a person’s ability to engage or participate in any activity” and is expected to last for six months. For those employers who operate across the Channel Islands, it is potentially going to lead to the situation where you have employees with the same issues in the two different jurisdictions being treated differently, which given the purpose of the legislation, is wrong.

It is easy to perhaps say that pan-island employers should just harmonise their standards up to the Guernsey level, or that Guernsey should have just copied the Jersey model, however, this whole topic feels like a missed opportunity for the two islands to work together. It is now 2 years since Emma Martins announced that she would be stepping down as the pan-island information commissioner, one of the few such pan-island roles that existed at the time. As has been well documented Emma Martins was subsequently appointed as the Guernsey Data Protection Commissioner, with Jersey then appointing its own equivalent, again with different laws. Equality was perhaps the ideal topic for the two islands to come together and establish a pan-island Equality Rights Organisation and Tribunal System that could operate across the jurisdictions, given the similarities between business sectors as well as the number of pan-island employers. Instead, as with data protection, it looks likely that businesses are yet again simply going to have deal with the inequalities in the system that our two equalities laws give us.

Key Contacts

Paul Worsnop

Counsel: Jersey

T +44 (0)1534 818 225
E Email Paul

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
20 Mar 2023

Trusts: Comparison between the Crown Dependencies

Our Private Client and Trusts specialists in Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey outline some of the ke...

Contributors: Paula Fry, Melissa Wong
19 Jan 2023

The Edinburgh Reforms: An Offshore Perspective

On 9 December 2022, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a package of reforms to the UK fina...

27 Sep 2022

Similar but Different

While the basic features of the trust remain, there are some notable differences in how trusts can b...

23 Feb 2022

Anonymisation of decisions: an invitation to consider this more but the unscrupulous need not apply!

The adage that ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” derives from a ...

25 Nov 2021

Regulatory Approach to ESG across the Crown Dependencies

New requirements may require investment products to display a label reflecting their sustainability ...

30 Jul 2021

Fighting international fraud

First published in New Law Journal, July 2021. Appleby partners Anthony William and Jared Dann an...

Contributors: Jared Dann, Claire Corkish
1 Jul 2021

Saunders v Vautier where the beneficial class is not closed - the debate goes on...

The rule in Saunders v Vautier is familiar territory for trust lawyers.  In the modern world it is ...

12 Mar 2021

Material adverse change clauses in light of the Covid-19 pandemic

Experts from each of our key global offices provide jurisdiction specific advice and answer question...

8 Mar 2021

Appleby Celebrates International Women’s Day

International Women’s Day is celebrated annually in support of gender equality and equal participa...