Equalities legislation and intersectionality

What is the Equality Act 2010?

The Equality Act 2010, became official on the 1st October 2010, and brought together over one hundred and sixteen separate pieces of legislation into a single Act. It brings together nine central pieces of legislation, including the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, the Equality Act 2006, Part 2, and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

The Equality Act 2010, itself refers to the protection of nine characteristics, including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. As part of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), public sector organisations must demonstrate how they comply and show due regard to the Equality Act 2010 as well as tackling inequalities experienced by those who are protected under the Act.

With the merging of a vast number of legislation, one could argue that the Equality Act 2010 itself is intersectional. However, under the current framework, the Equality Act 2010 does not consider the ways in which inequalities and characteristics may intersect. This was highlighted by Shahin (2020), who wrote

"the current British Equality Framework is premised upon a single-grounds approach which assumes that people’s identities may neatly be boxed up into manageable characteristics in order to claim protection. In contrast, an Intersectional approach recognises that an individual’s identity traits may be so intertwined that splitting them up is not reflective of the intersectional person’s experience"

This edition seeks to explore the possibility of applying an intersectionality lens to current equalities legislation drawing on evidence and insights.

Where are the cracks?

When we look at the Equality Act 2010 in this light, we can see that organisations may find it difficult developing actions and objectives to address inequalities experienced by those with protected characteristics. I know this from having delivered talks across the UK, and hearing from organisations that are new to learning about intersectionality and how it can accelerate work towards more inclusive institutions, cultures and systems. However, when speaking with peers across the world, I hear organisations are often developing many policies, programmes and practices for every characteristic that can make it difficult to monitor and evaluate impact and progress. Yet, if we are to apply an intersectional lens to the Equality Act 2010 we can start to break down equalities siloes and start exploring the space between the protected characteristics. The Act is not too clear on how it accounts for those that have multiple intersecting protected characteristics and what organisations could do for those that experience double and sometimes triple discrimination. This can result in those who have multiple intersecting protected characteristics are more likely to fall through the cracks of the current framework and may be at higher risk of experiencing adverse outcomes.

Why does intersectionality matter?

When Kimberlé Crenshaw spoke about intersectionality in a TED talk, Crenshaw said

" if we can't see a problem, we can't fix a problem"

If use a problem-based approach, the problem we could assume is that we are not using intersectionality as a prism to the legislative framework. Evidence shows that communities who represent intersecting protected characteristics and those beyond what are highlighted in the Equality Act 2010 across the UK are facing adversities in life-chances and outcomes, and some examples of this are highlighted below:

• Example 1: Hu (2020) who explored 'intersecting ethnic and native-migrant inequalities in the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK' found "that compared with UK-born white British, black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) migrants in the UK were more likely to experience job loss during the COVID-19 lockdown, while BAME natives were less likely to enjoy employment protection such as furloughing."
• Example 2: The Fawcett Society (2021) found a number of intersectional inequalities in their report: 1) Compared with White British men, women of colour (WoC) consistently earn less per hour with pay gaps ranging from 10% for Indian women to 28% for Pakistani women. (2) At school, Black girls are twice as likely to be permanently excluded compared to white girls, and are placed in lower sets than warranted by their ability. (3) Just under one-third of WoC say they have been unfairly denied training or development opportunities which would enable promotion. This rose to more than half of disabled WoC (52%).
• Example 3: Carter (2022) in a report published by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office highlighted that "experiences of disadvantage can be compounded by intersecting identities: for example, ‘the intersection of gender, age, ethnicity, and place of residence can have significantly more deleterious effects than the effects of gender alone’ (World Bank, 2013: 7 )"

While these are just a few examples of the ways in which intersecting inequalities manifest themselves, there is an argument to be made that intersectionality matters and highly relevant to tackling inequalities.

Where can intersectionality go from here?

We can employ an approach to advancing equality that challenges the idea that a person can only experience one inequality at a time, and explore the ways in which protected characteristics (and beyond) are interconnected and intersecting. When we do this, we can begin to move the work to a more sophisticated conversation about the equalities legislation. We can look within and between characteristics to think more diligently about our policies, objectives and actions. We could also further our thinking to the ways in which those who have multiple intersecting characteristics are positioned in structures, how they are represented and better understand the ways in which policy influences and impacts communities. Utilising intersectionality could lead us to a more colourful view of the equalities legislation, and perhaps employing a lens that is more reflective of a highly diverse UK society.

This article only begins to share some reflections and thoughts, on the ways in which intersectionality could offer a more advanced view of equalities legislation. While this edition is a test case, there are further possibilities about where equalities legislation might move in the future:

1. we could look at the implementation of equality legislation through the lens of intersectionality,
2. we could pilot an approach to use intersectionality to break down siloes of inequalities
3. we could utilise intersectionality to tackle hierarchies of inequality
4. we could cultivate more inclusive organisations recognising the fluidity and complexity of characteristics and identities

What are your reflections on this test? Share your thoughts in the comments.