cvs_borghEAT072013 EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION AGE DISCRIMINATION The authorities on the alternative definition of ’employee’ in Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 as a person employed ‘under a contract personally to do any work’ establish that there is a dichotomy between independent providers of services who are … Continue reading CVS Solicitors Llp and Another v Van Der Borgh (Religion or Belief Discrimination): EAT 26 Jul 2013
EAT Religion or Belief Discrimination – The Appellant, a sub-editor, who was a Roman Catholic, was offended by an editor referring to ‘the fucking Pope’ when chasing a delayed article and brought a claim for harassment on the grounds of religious belief. The Tribunal held that the use of bad language was evidently merely an … Continue reading Heafield v Times Newspaper Ltd: EAT 17 Jan 2013
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect Discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.Employee required to join a fridge-cleaning rota as a condition of using the communal staff kitchen. Complaint that the requirement infringed his religious belief that he cannot touch meat or meat products. At pre-hearing review the Employment Tribunal found that … Continue reading Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council: EAT 13 May 2011
The court was asked whether parties to an arbitration agreement in a commercial contract can stipulate that the tribunal is to be drawn from members of a particular religious group, in this case the Ismaili community. Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The Directive was concerned with discrimination in several fields many of which were already … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani (Rev 2): CA 22 Jun 2010
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATIONUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissalChristian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.Held: Tribunal right to dismiss claims of discrimination (direct and indirect) contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and of unfair dismissal – London Borough of Islington v … Continue reading McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd: EAT 30 Nov 2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION The claimant was a Registrar who, amongst other things, registered marriages. When the Civil Partnerships Act came into force, she refused to participate in registering such partnerships because to do so was inconsistent with her religious beliefs. The council insisted that she should undertake at least some of these duties, … Continue reading London Borough of Islington v Ladele: EAT 19 Dec 2008
EAT Religion or belief – whether claim fell within Part II (Employment and Vocational Training). The Tribunal concluded that the claim did not fall within Part II of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. It did not err in law in reaching this conclusion. The claimant did not establish that his claim fell … Continue reading Padgett v Serota and Another: EAT 17 Dec 2007
The claimant had resigned as a magistrate after a refusal of his requirement that he not be asked to sit on adoption applications involving same sex couples. Held: The request was an abdication of the duties of a magistrate, and his claim failed. EAT Religion or beliefThe appellant was a Justice of the Peace. He … Continue reading McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs: EAT 31 Oct 2007
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDUREDisclosureHUMAN RIGHTS(1) The procedure sanctioned by rule 54 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and by the Employment Tribunals (National Security) Rules of Procedure, is not incompatible with a claimant’s right under Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair hearing of his claim for discrimination, or … Continue reading Tariq v The Home Office: EAT 16 Oct 2009
The claimant said that the requirement in an arbitration clause for all the arbitrators to be members of the Ismaili community was unlawful under the 2003 Regulations. Held: The appointment was not discriminatory. An arbitrator’s employment was not within the Regulations, and was not a worker under the case law. He was instead an independent … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: ComC 26 Jun 2009
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly discriminated against her on grounds of religion or belief. Held: There was no requirement that a … Continue reading Eweida v British Airways Plc: CA 12 Feb 2010
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 Regulations. The High Court found the appointment to be outwith the provisions, but this was … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011
The claimant alleged discrimination. As a teaching assistant, she had been refused permission to wear a veil when assisting a male teacher. Held: Direct discrimination had not been shown. The respondent had shown that any comparator would have also been required to remove a veil since it obscured her face and mouth and was a … Continue reading Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council: EAT 30 Mar 2007
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations. The belief must be of a similar cogency or status to a religious belief, the ECHR jurisprudence is … Continue reading Grainger Plc and Others v Nicholson: EAT 3 Nov 2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATIONVicarious liability Post employmentThe Appellants were members of the board of a Centre. As a result of decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, it was held that the Appellants had unfairly dismissed the Respondents, who were employees of the Centre and that they had unfairly discriminated against them on … Continue reading Bungay and Others v Saini and Others: EAT 27 Sep 2011
The employee renewed his application for leave to appeal against refusal of his discrimination claim on the grounds of religious belief. He worked as a relationship sex therapist, and had signed up to the employer’s equal opportunities policy, but felt that his Christian beliefs required him not to work to assist same sex couples where … Continue reading McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd: CA 29 Apr 2010
Statement of Facts and Questions to parties . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
EAT An atheist teacher working in a Roman Catholic school applied for the post of Acting Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care. He was not even considered for an interview as he was not of the Roman Catholic faith and the local education authority which maintained the school thought that the Roman Catholic Church would have … Continue reading Glasgow City Council v McNab: EAT 17 Jan 2007
The appellant was employed as a registrar. She refused to preside at same sex partnership ceremonies, saying that they conflicted with her Christian beliefs. Held: The council’s decision had clearly disadvantaged the claimant, and the question was whether its policies were a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. They were. The overarching policy was … Continue reading Ladele v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Dec 2009
