Equity versus Equality: The role of equity in the workplace

March 8 marks International Women’s Day (IWD) with the theme for this year being ‘Equity v Equality”.  Around the world, people are being encouraged to look beyond the idea of equality and instead #embraceequity. 

What is the difference between Equity and Equality? 

Whilst the concepts of ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ are sometimes used interchangeably, they do, in fact, have very distinct meanings. 

‘Equality’ is the term that is probably most familiar to us.  It is easy to believe that we know what it means. Most, if not all, employers will have some kind of Equal Opportunities Policy or statement setting out their commitment to treating everyone equally no matter their gender, race, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status etc.  Ask anyone and they are likely to tell you that ‘equality’ is treating everyone the same, giving everyone the same resources and the same access to opportunities. 

They would not be wrong.  The [concise] Oxford English Dictionary, after all, defines  ‘equality’ as “…the condition of being equal…”.   Aiming to treat everyone the same, therefore, seems to be as good an intention as any, and a worthy objective in a diverse world.  ‘Equity’ on the other hand, is defined as “fairness” – i.e: the quality of being fair and equal. 

But what, exactly, is the difference? 

The difference, so it seems, appears to be one of being as opposed to doing.  To elaborate, the concept of ‘equality’ is, at its heart, a static one.  It suggests that a fixed goal has been achieved; an objective obtained; a condition satisfied. 

Equity, on the other hand, is a dynamic force.  It requires some action to balance the characteristics of fairness and equality against each other before a just outcome can be achieved.  An equitable approach, therefore, acknowledges the limitations of the ‘equal treatment’ principle.  Giving everyone the same share of resources, for example, is equal treatment - but it will not necessarily be fair.  It will not necessarily level the playing field in a way that could be achieved if there were a more proportionate, rather than equal, distribution of resources.

This approach does, of course, require an assessment of what each person or under-represented group, may need in order to achieve their potential and, for that reason is a less attractive -  but no less important- solution to addressing equalities (and inequalities) issues. 

Equity and the law

As far as the legal world is concerned, the concept of equity is nothing new.  It developed as a distinct and more flexible form of justice to provide remedies in situations where damages alone (i.e. compensation - the primary remedy available at common law) would not provide a fair resolution. 

The #embraceequity moniker trending on websites today is not strictly referring to “equity” as a rule of law. However, the idea behind it – i.e. that rigid legal principles may not necessarily provide a fair result for the parties, transposes well into the equity v equality debate. 

As employment lawyers, our team is often asked to advise on equalities and diversity issues and our primary source of reference is the Equality Act 2010.   This provides protection from discrimination, harassment and victimization on the grounds of, or arising from, nine characteristics (age, disability, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marital and civil partnership status and pregnancy and maternity). 

Employers are required to foster a diverse working environment and accessible workplace, to avoid unconscious bias in job advertisements and applications processes and to ensure that promotion and training opportunities are based on objectively assessed skills and experience.

However, today’s IWD theme has got me thinking:  how much of what we advise our clients is derived from equity, and equitable principles, rather than on the concept of equality? How far does the Equality Act actually require employers to treat staff equitably, according to their individual needs, rather than equally, by reference to the way others are treated? To the extent that it even does #embraceequity, does it go far enough? 

Equity and The Equality Act 2010

There are certainly some clear examples where the Equality Act legislates precisely for the type of equitable approach being talked about today.  The law relating to disability discrimination is a case in point. In particular, the obligation on employers to make reasonable adjustments in circumstances where a disabled employee would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage by their work environment or in the arrangements made for work. 

The purpose of the reasonable adjustments obligation is not to lower the standards expected from those employees but to provide the means by which, or the  resources to help, those employees reach the required standards.  By definition, this will not be a one-size fits all approach; it will require individual assessment of the employee’s capabilities against their job role, the employer’s resources and the effectiveness of the proposed adjustment to the employee.   

Likewise, the law relating to equal pay also acknowledges the limitations posed by a rigid focus on equal treatment over fairness.  Despite conscious efforts to redress this, many jobs are still segregated by gender.  Construction and engineering, for example, are still largely male-dominated whilst nursing and administrative roles remain largely female domains. 

The Equality Act recognises the challenges that such segregation poses for equal pay issues and anticipates this by providing legislative and equitable principles that ensure men and women are not only paid the same for doing the same job but also paid the same for different jobs of equal value to each other, or for work which, following an independent evaluation, has been rated as equivalent. Whilst equal pay is the ultimate objective, therefore, the route to get there navigates through the principles of equity and fairness before (hopefully) resting at the doorway of natural justice.

Do we need to do more?

No doubt, readers may be able to think of additional examples to the ones mentioned above.  Nevertheless, as far as treating staff equitably (as opposed to equally) it is clear that there is still some way to go. 

I am not suggesting for a moment that we need more “protected characteristics”.  These are unlikely to fix the problem. Individuals’ ability to access and participate fully in the world of work is as much a consequence of their background circumstances (their education; their socio-economic status; their caring responsibilities etc.) than it is about their physical attributes or culture.   

An employee going through a divorce, for example, may need as much flexibility (either temporarily or permanently) as a colleague caring for a disabled child.  A job applicant with poor exam results may have grown up in a deprived area with limited educational choices.  This does not necessarily make them unsuitable for a job – but only interviewing those with B grades or above, or 2:1 degrees or above will limit the diversity of an employer’s talent pool, restrict choice and undoubtedly perpetuate the socio-economic divide. 

One solution which seems to be gaining traction is for Equal Opportunities policies to be replaced by Equal Opportunities and Equity Policies, which aim not only to eliminate discrimination but also to break down barriers by recognizing and addressing both the character and the needs of staff. 

In my experience, Equal Opportunities policies on their own are often stagnant documents buried within the pages of a weighty staff handbook, occasionally referenced but often paid no more than lip service. 

Shifting the focus from equality as an abstract utopian goal (as it is so often perceived) to concentrate on the journey – via equity - to equality, guarantees a continuing dialogue between the two and ensures equalities and diversity issues remain top of the agenda rather than buried beneath a one-dimensional perspective.