Death of the office joke: Coalition enacts Harriet's PC equality law which means ANYONE can sue for ANYTHING that offends them
Draconian new equality laws could spell the end of the office joke.

Ministers yesterday announced that the vast bulk of Labour’s controversial Equality Act would be implemented immediately, despite concerns about its impact on business and office life.

The legislation, championed by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the workplace.

It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment’, under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive – even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren’t there at the time the comments were made.

They can sue if they feel the comments ‘violate their dignity’ or create an ‘intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.

A one-off incident is enough to sue – there is no need for the ‘victim’ to have warned the perpetrator that their comments are unwelcome.

They could even have a case against their employer if a customer or contractor says something they find offensive.

One critic suggested employers could have to outlaw office banter to prevent offending anyone.

And business leaders warned that the equality laws could derail Britain’s economic recovery, with fears that employers will face a tidal wave of trivial discrimination claims.

Tory MP Philip Davies said the decision to press ahead with Labour’s Equality Act showed the ‘politically correct consensus is still alive and well in Government’.

Mr Davies said: ‘This is Harriet Harman’s politically correct legacy, full of stuff that is completely barmy to most people. It will be the end of the office joke.

‘It is a charter for lawyers and people who want to make vexatious complaints that will tie employers up in knots.

'I have no doubt it will accelerate the increase in the number of employment tribunals – there is all sorts of nonsense for people with a grudge to get stuck into.

'I don’t think employers have appreciated the extent of it.

‘At a time when we are trying to encourage employers to take more people on, the last thing they need is this albatross round their necks.’

Under the legislation, employers will be barred from asking about the health of job applicants, leading to fears they could be landed with staff with appalling sickness records.

Workers can cite ‘discrimination by association’ if they feel they have lost out because of an employer’s prejudice against a relative, such as a gay brother.

Employment tribunals have also been given powers to order costly changes in the workplace, such as requiring managers to undergo diversity and equality training.

Home Secretary Theresa May, who is also minister for women and equality, has defended the decision to press ahead with the laws, saying: ‘In these challenging economic times it’s more important than ever for employers to make the most of all the talent available.

‘When a company reflects the society it serves, it’s better for the employer, the employees and the customers.’

But the British Chambers of Commerce said last night that the equality rules were part of a wider package of employment law reforms threatening to burden business with £11.3billion in extra costs.

Director-general David Frost called for a moratorium on new employment law, warning that the measures threatened to damage the economic recovery.

He said: ‘If private sector businesses are to offset job losses in the public sector, the significant costs of employing people must be reduced. As austerity measures start to bite, companies need the flexibility and freedom to boost employment and drive our economic recovery.

‘While we have heard some good announcements from the Coalition about reviewing and scrutinising upcoming red tape, businesses are yet to see the benefits.’

A survey by Personnel Today yesterday found that only half of all human resources managers fully understand the new laws.

The figure among smaller businesses, which do not have personnel departments, is likely to be far higher.

A spokesman for the Institute of Directors said: ‘All businesses will need to be very clued up on the ramifications of what the new regulations are – if you have a whole human resources team that’s fine, but a lot of our members are small businesses and they don’t have that.’

Abigail Morris, policy adviser at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the Government’s own impact assessment showed it would cost business £190million just to get to grips with the new laws.

She said the full cost could be greater if employers face a fresh wave of trivial discrimination and harassment claims.

She added: ‘Businesses are really concerned about this. Even the Government admits it imposes an absolutely huge cost on business.

'The constant changes to the law make it more likely that businesses will get caught out.

‘We have already seen a big increase in employment tribunals, which were up by 56 per cent last year. Any business that goes to tribunal has already lost, even if they win, because of the cost and time and trouble involved.’

Sandra Wallace, of law firm DLA Piper, said the way the Act was being implemented was ‘potentially confusing’ for employers.

She said it would ‘risk protracted legal wrangles in employment tribunals that are already overstretched, and a general increase in claims’.

Ministers are reviewing parts of the law which would force employers to publish ‘gender pay audits’ and separate measures which would make public sector employers promote equality proactively.

. Additionally, the Mail fails to mention that parts of the Act will not even be brought into force.

while I agree wit the rest of what you say - and there's definitely a huge degree of 'It's political correctness GONE MAD' in the daily fails reporting, the bare fact is if it's in the Act, it already has been 'brought into force'. Any part of an act can be applied at legal process at any point once it's an act (rather than a bill). It's not like there's some further 'implementation stage'. Once it's on the books, lawyers can argue for it in court and people can use it for legal redress.