To date the mainstreaming of equality and human rights law into public sector organisations has been underwhelming with the implementation of these norms being ad hoc and inconsistent. Existing research on factors that influence implementation has been either too general or too disjointed. This article has two aims to advance research on the implementation of equality and human rights: (i) to outline factors that influence the implementation of these norms and (ii) provide a more settled foundations for future research on equality and human rights implementation. It does this through interviews, undertaken in 2018–2019, with individuals responsible for leading the implementation of equality and human rights law within public sector organisations (specifically regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen) in England and Wales. On the basis of this, the article makes suggestions for how the implementation of equality and human rights can be advanced further through changes to the regulatory environment.

The UK enacted its first legal measure to address gender pay inequity, the Equal Pay Act 1970, more than 50 years ago. Yet, in 2021, the gender pay gap (GPG) still stood at 15.4%. Departing from the remedial and individual approach that characterises equal pay legislation, the 2017 Gender Pay Gap Information Regulations (the Regulations) require private and voluntary sector organisations with 250+ employees to annually publish pay data broken down by gender. The long-term aspiration of the Regulations is to contribute to closing the GPG within a generation. It is also hoped that they will encourage the public disclosure of pay data and changes in workplace policies to reduce organisational GPGs (immediate aims) and improve employers’ accountability (underlying aim). This paper considers whether the Regulations have what it takes to meet those immediate and underlying aims. Our assessment framework is built on the premise that for public disclosure to be useful and for employers to tackle the causes of the GPG, the information reported must be of sufficient quality, meaningful and relevant. The paper draws on both doctrinal analysis and empirical data reported by FTSE 100 Index companies to assess the Regulations and determine whether they hold the potential to meet those aims.

The UK has recently adopted a policy of granting digital-only proof of immigration status for certain groups of migrants. More than 4.5 million individuals are reliant on this form of status and the number is growing. In this paper, we argue that this policy, as currently operationalised, is unlawful as a result of its discriminatory impact. If it remains unchanged, the roots of digital discrimination in immigration policy and administration will be allowed to spread, with potentially disastrous consequences.

I have long felt that Peter Fitzpatrick's 1987 paper, ‘Racism and the innocence of law’, should be closely studied by all law students during, or shortly after, their induction to the study of law. These concise notes on the paper are written primarily in tribute to a friend, colleague and mentor but, in writing them, I hope also to demonstrate how this early instance of a theory about how law is intertwined in racial capitalism could be taught in those law schools that harbour ambitions to be not only critical, but also decolonial. Inevitably, in such a short piece, choices have had to be made about which aspects of the paper to foreground and which to leave out entirely. I trust that my decision to focus on those aspects that can be more readily comprehended by a student with limited knowledge of legal theory and substantive fields of law will not be thought to have unduly watered down its meaning.

The online publication of employment tribunal (ET) decisions in England, Wales and Scotland marks a watershed moment, opening up new innovative avenues for legal research, and promoting transparency in labour law decision-making. Drawing on this ‘dataset’, and using age discrimination decisions as a lens to facilitate analysis, this paper reflects on the advantages and limitations of using online ET decisions as a data source to support labour law research. By considering matters of time in age discrimination decisions – both in relation to time limits for bringing a claim, and ET delays – this paper uses innovative empirical findings to map the limits of the individual enforcement model adopted by discrimination laws, and illustrates some of the barriers to successfully bringing a claim for discrimination.

Experimentalism is a theory of regulation in which change is achieved via a process of ‘directly deliberative polyarchy’ within an experimentalist architecture. This paper argues that experimentalism offers a normatively desirable model for legal interventions relating to the ageing workforce, and age equality law in particular, and offers new insights into existing UK scholarship on reflexive law. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative data from UK universities, this article considers the extent to which reforms to retirement ages have promoted a form of experimentalism among UK universities. This paper offers concrete suggestions and reforms for how an experimentalist framework could be adopted in this context to enhance regulatory reform.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was created in 2006 with wide-ranging powers to protect human rights, promote equal opportunities and encourage mutual respect between different groups. Alongside the Commission, individuals through the courts, and sector-specific enforcers (such as ombudsmen and regulators) have also been given equality and human rights enforcement powers. Within this enforcement landscape, the Commission has struggled to craft an enforcement role for itself. For the first time, this paper, through the mapping of these different actors in their shared regulatory space, outlines a role for the Commission in equality and human rights enforcement. This role consists of three primary tasks: (i) taking action that courts and sector-specific enforcers are unable to perform; (ii) overcoming some of the limitations of private enforcement in the courts; and (iii) coordinating and supporting sector-specific enforcers. The paper concludes by exploring how the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) can effectively fulfil this role.