-1

The equality act has some anti retaliatory provisions which it terms as anti-“victimisation”.

Is there any more general term for such provisions as of this type, which protect claimants from otherwise lawful and discretionary detriments motivated by their legal actions about some other wrongdoings?

For example, an improvement notice carries with it an “anti retaliation” bar on s21 eviction for six months following it subject to some caveats.

Is there a more general term for this type of provision/regime?

TylerDurden
  • 1
  • 1
  • 30
  • 92
  • Apropos: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/87946/is-there-anything-to-stop-a-private-business-from-barring-a-previous-customer-wh/94299#94299 – TylerDurden Aug 04 '23 at 22:22
  • 2
    "Whistle blower protection" is another phrase that is used in this context. Need sure if this is what you are thinking of. – ohwilleke Aug 04 '23 at 22:39
  • Yes I suppose along those lines. Are there any particularly prominent examples of this sort of thing you could think of? – TylerDurden Aug 05 '23 at 11:31
  • 1
    It isn't at all clear what "sort of thing' you are talking about. – ohwilleke Aug 05 '23 at 22:41
  • What I mean is a pattern where: Legal regime forbids X (or grants individual remedy in case of X); individual takes action pursuant to X taking place; legal regime also has active provisions to protect against individual suffering other detriments that might arise in retribution for the individual exercising their protection from X. So for example, the equality act sets out protected activities and then terms retribution against those protected activities (ie largely exercising the rights granted to people by the equality act itself) as “victimisation”. – TylerDurden Aug 06 '23 at 15:56
  • I could imagine (and would Find it nice) if consumer protection regimes (for example) included such features because it seems like if not then there is a deterrent to exercising protections that largely renders them toothless. So for example: if a consumer is not satisfied with a service then they’re entitled to claim a partial refund. If it was an isolated incident or there aren’t good alternatives to the business then the consumer may not wish to exercise the remedy lest they be refused service again in the future. – TylerDurden Aug 06 '23 at 15:57
  • I guess I’m looking for any general term even if it is post-facto/descriptive, unofficial or academic in nature. Surely there must be a term for this type of feature in comparative law studies? For example in the UK there is the equality act, in the U.S. I gather the civil rights act but my understanding is that they are both largely the same thing and fall into the categorical term in widespread use known as “anti-discrimination laws”. – TylerDurden Aug 06 '23 at 16:19
  • Reprisal is a good word though; perhaps that forms the core of such a term that exists. – TylerDurden Aug 06 '23 at 16:20
  • 1
    Do you mean something like *malum in se* and/or *malum prohibitum*? If so, the link is a possible duplicate. –  Aug 07 '23 at 06:22
  • I’m finding it hard to find such similarities that could make it remotely possible to mistake these as duplicates of each other, but assume I’m missing something. – TylerDurden Aug 08 '23 at 12:50

1 Answers1

0

There is no universal term. Different statutes label such provisions differently, but the label doesn't matter: what matters is what is prohibited.

For example, Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act s. 50 says:

No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall,

(a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss a worker;

(b) discipline or suspend or threaten to discipline or suspend a worker;

(c) impose any penalty upon a worker; or

(d) intimidate or coerce a worker,

because the worker has acted in compliance with this Act or the regulations or an order made thereunder, has sought the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or has given evidence in a proceeding in respect of the enforcement of this Act or the regulations or in an inquest under the Coroners Act.

This is found in a Part titled "REPRISALS BY EMPLOYER PROHIBITED" and the section heading is "No discipline, dismissal, etc., by employer."

Under British Columbia's Human Rights Code, s. 43 says:

A person must not evict, discharge, suspend, expel, intimidate, coerce, impose any pecuniary or other penalty on, deny a right or benefit to or otherwise discriminate against a person because that person complains or is named in a complaint, might complain or be named in a complaint, gives evidence, might give evidence or otherwise assists or might assist in a complaint or other proceeding under this Code.

That section is titled "Protection." And in public communications, the Human Rights Commission calls this "protection from retaliation."

So, just from two statutes and related communications, the terms used are:

  • protection
  • protection from retaliation
  • reprisals prohibited
  • no discipline, dismissals, etc.

You have presented two other alternatives in your question, and I am sure you can find many more.

But again, the labels do not matter. What matters is the substantive prohibition in the statute.

If you find it useful to use one of these general terms in communication, just choose one, explain what you mean by it, then use it in your communication.

Jen
  • 54,294
  • 5
  • 110
  • 242