We As One
S27 of RDO
The Complainant (C) is a Filipino domestic worker. She alleged that the Respondent (R), a bank, discriminated against her on the ground of race. R required C to provide her passport in order to open a bank account despite her provision of an HKID card and a proof of address.
C lodged a complaint of racial discrimination with the EOC. The case was settled through conciliation after R provided an apology letter.
Remarks:
It is unlawful under the Race Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person on the ground of race in the provision of goods, facilities, and services. In this case, if C was treated unfavorably on the ground of her race in the terms, manner, and quality in which the service is provided by R, such provision of service may amount to racial discrimination.
The Complainant (C) is a Filipino domestic helper. She and her employers resided at a private housing estate managed by Respondent 1 (R1). C alleged that the staff, Respondent 2 (R2), of R1 discriminated against her on the ground of her race by requiring her to leave the clubhouse seating area of the housing estate where she resided.
C alleged that both R1 and R2 committed racial discrimination and lodged a complaint with the EOC. The case was settled through conciliation after R1 agreed to post a notice in a prominent area of the club house to state its non-discriminatory stance and R2 agreed to give a written apology.
It is unlawful under the Race Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person on the ground of race in the provision of goods, facilities and services. In this case, denying a person the use of facilities because of his/her race may amount to race discrimination.
S45 and S48 of RDO
The Complainant (C), a South East Asian national, came across racially derogatory and demeaning remarks, such as “swine” and “meaner than dogs”, targeted at the people of her nationality while surfing a discussion forum at a website managed by the Respondent (R). C felt humiliated by these remarks.
C lodged a complaint with the EOC alleging race discrimination against R for allowing its members to post remarks which could incite hatred towards people of her race. The remarks were immediately removed by R. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to post a notice reminding its members and users that it is against the RDO to post racially derogatory remarks.
Under S45 of the Race Discrimination Ordinance (RDO) it is unlawful for a person (in this case the writer who has written and posted the derogatory remarks), by any activity in public, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of another person or members of a class of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the class of persons.
Under S48 of the RDO, the website company could be seen as aiding the unlawful act if it allowed its members to post such remarks.
The Complainant (C), a Chinese man, alleged that the Respondent (R), an insurance company, discriminated against him on the ground of race by requiring him to sign a document in English as a part of the claims procedure. C stated that he did not understand the document and had requested a Chinese version; however, the request was declined by R.
C alleged that R's refusal was racial discrimination and lodged a complaint with the EOC. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to provide the document in Chinese to C.
It is unlawful under the Race Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person on the ground of race in providing goods, facilities, and services. Although language is not defined as race under the RDO, language used by people is often associated with their race. It may amount to indirect race discrimination to impose language requirement or condition unless that is justifiable. In this case, the provision of the insurance document in English only implies that the customers should be able to understand English. Since Chinese is one of the official languages in Hong Kong and is widely used, it is unlikely that the insurance company will be able to justify not providing the document in Chinese.
The Complainant (C), a Muslim woman originally from Pakistan, went to use a swimming pool managed by the Respondent (R). C had to cover up the curves of her body due to her religious customs, so she wore a T-shirt and long pants on top of her swimming suit. She was not allowed to swim by the pool's staff due to her clothing, but she alleged seeing other Chinese women in a very similar type of outfit using the facility.
C lodged a complaint with the EOC against R for racial discrimination in the usage terms of the service and facility. R denied the allegation and explained that such an outfit was allowed by their policy. They felt that the incident might have arisen from a misunderstanding between C and the pool's staff about whether C was wearing a swimsuit underneath her T-shirt. The case was settled through conciliation after the concerned staff agreed to apologize verbally and R confirmed the policy that persons wearing loose T-shirt and loose pants (covering the knees) on top of their swimming suit are allowed to use the swimming pool.
Under the Race Discrimination Ordinance (RDO), it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of race in providing goods, facilities, and services. While the RDO does not apply to discrimination on the ground of religion, some requirements or conditions relating to religion may result in indirect discrimination against certain racial groups, in which case the RDO may apply. If the swimming pool had a policy against wearing an attire such as that worn by C, it may be discriminatory against Muslims and indirectly against Pakistanis, most of whom are Muslim, and the RDO would be applicable.
The Complainant (C) is a foreign domestic helper. She and her employers resided at a private housing estate managed by the Respondent (R). C alleged that R discriminated against her on the ground of her race by not allowing her to take a seat on the sofa of the housing estate's club house. She was asked to leave as the seats are for Chinese people only. Her employer represented her to lodge the complaint.
C lodged a complaint against R for racial discrimination with the EOC. The case was settled through conciliation after R promised not to discriminate against any other person on the ground of race.
It is unlawful under the Race Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person on the ground of race in the provision of goods, facilities, and services. In this case, refusing to let a person use facilities because of his/her race may amount to race discrimination.
The Complainant (C) alleged the Respondent (R), a video rental shop, had discriminated against him by restricting their service to Japanese people only. R provides video rental service for Japanese films to its members. R refused C's application to be a member because C was not Japanese.
C alleged R's decision was racial discrimination and lodged a complaint with the EOC. The case was settled through conciliation after R agreed to provide membership service to C.
It is unlawful under the Race Discrimination Ordinance to discriminate against a person on the ground of race in the provision of goods, facilities, and services. In this case, if C's race was the reason for refusal of the membership application, such refusal of service could be discriminatory.
S (4 and 27) of RDO
The Complainant (C), belonging to an ethnic minority community of Hong Kong, visited an outlet of a restaurant chain (R) for lunch with his father during weekend. C said they were served good food but claimed the manner in which the service was provided was discriminatory. According to C, staff at R placed the bill for the food at his table a few minutes after serving food, while other diners were not subjected to the same procedure. C felt he was meted different treatment because of his race while the others were not because they were local Chinese and white people.
C lodged a complaint of race discrimination against R. R claimed that it was their standard practice of handing over the bill together with the meal during peak hours (e.g. at lunch) and was not, in any manner, intended to discriminate C. The case was settled through early conciliation after R agreed to change their practice and hand over the bill only after seeking approval from the customer.
Under the Race Discrimination Ordinance, it is unlawful if a service provider treats a customer less favourably because of his/her race in the terms, manner and quality in which the service is provided. In this case the restaurant requires only the customer belonging to certain ethnic group to settle the bill before finishing the meal while other customers are not asked to do so could be discriminatory.