This was all well and good if any Sikhs working for BA at the time were facing imminent death from a plane filled with smoke, but in training this wasn't the case. This left BA to face the wrath of the Race Relations Act and the hoods were soon redesigned. With amendments due in April 2001, the Race Relations Act catches a lot of employers in terms of religious discrimination. It does not explicitly cover religious discrimination but does so implicitly as is shown by the BA incident. Race discrimination is said to occur when a person is treated less favourably on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin and can be defined as either direct, indirect or victimisation.
Direct discrimination is relatively easy to spot and self-defining.
Indirect discrimination is more difficult to spot and usually the one that catches employers. Again, the BA case above is a good example. Unwittingly, the smoke hoods were blocking Sikhs from working as stewards they were therefore indirectly discriminative. Victimisation occurs when an employee has taken action under the Race Relations Act and is being victimised for their actions. It is unlawful to discriminate against any worker on racial grounds.