Need help with my writing homework on Under the Race Relations Act 1976. Write a 2500 word paper answering;

Need help with my writing homework on Under the Race Relations Act 1976. Write a 2500 word paper answering; Electric Dreams Limited is liable for racial discrimination through harassment for failing to provide and ensure that the workplace environment is not “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive” for Mr Theopopolous. In addition, the respondent has failed to abide by the statutory requirements pertaining to employee conduct and employment termination procedures.

Originally, discrimination under the RRA 1976 can be committed in three ways: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation. The primary distinction among the three is that indirect discrimination it is the respondent which treats the complainant comparatively less than the others by reason of the latter’s racial or ethnic origin, in indirect discrimination, it is the condition or requirement which becomes the tool of discrimination because such condition cannot be complied with by the complainant by reason of his racial or ethnical custom and beliefs, and in victimisation, the discrimination occurs after the complainant has filed a case of discrimination or done any other previous act testifying or informing others of such discriminatory practices by the employer (Race Relations Act 19976). In 2003 however, the RRA 1976 was amended to include another category – harassment – now integrated into the law as Section 3A. The said section states:

The case of Gravell v London Borough of Bexley, [2007] UKEAT 0587_06_0203 was an appeal for a review of a part of a decision of the lower employment tribunal which struck out two specific allegations of the complainant: first, the policy of the respondent employer not to challenge racist comments, and. second, the failure of the respondent employer to correct the racial harassments made by her co-employer through test messages even though she specifically brought them to its attention. The lower tribunal’s rationale for its decision was that the allegations did not have much chance of success in the light of the obiter dictum made by the House of Lords in the case of Pearce v The Governing Body&nbsp.of Mayfield School [2003] ICR 937 which disapproved of the EAT’s decision in Burton v De Vere Hotels Ltd [1997] ICR I. &nbsp.