EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION Racial harassment – Tribunal did not make a finding on the question of whether a fellow employee used the expression ‘white trash’ in his hearing, did not make findings on certain relevant aspects of section 3A of the Race Relations Act 1976 and did not deal with one aspect of the Claimant’s … Continue reading Cam v Matrix Service Development and Training Ltd (Race Discrimination): EAT 28 Aug 2013
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 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissalRACE DISCRIMINATIONHARASSMENTConsideration of ss.12(1A) and 27A Race Relations Act 1976. Employment Judge correct in striking out Claimant’s complaint of harassment under s.3A RRA on particular facts of this case. Judges: Peter Clark J Citations: [2011] UKEAT 0201 – 11 – 0411, [2011] UKEAT 0202 – 11 – 0411 Links: Bailii, … Continue reading Vaidya v The General Medical Council: EAT 4 Nov 2011
EAT Race Discrimination Racial harassment (s3A). Effect of House of Lords Judgment in Pearce v The Governing Body of Mayfield School re. Burton v de Vere Hotels Ltd on s3A claim. Employment Tribunal strike-out. Need for fact-finding. Appeal allowed.The Tribunal had struck out a claim brought under section 3A of the Race Relations Act. The … Continue reading Gravell v London Borough of Bexley: EAT 2 Mar 2007
EAT HARASSMENT: Purpose Tribunal was entitled to find that a remark made by an employer to a female employee of Indian ethnic origin referring to the possibility of her being ‘married off in India’ had the effect of violating her dignity and constituted harassment within the meaning of s. 3A of the Race Relations Act … Continue reading Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal: EAT 12 Feb 2009
EAT HARASSMENT – Conduct Where an employee worked in an environment in which her dignity was violated, or which became intimidatory, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive as a result of actions of others whom her employer did not control, in what circumstances is that employer liable to her for damages for discrimination or harassment on … Continue reading Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd: EAT 17 Dec 2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of Proof Ex-employee given unfavourable reference – Claim that terms of reference were partly on account of her having previously brought sex discrimination proceedings against employers – Claim decided by the Tribunal on basis of the ‘reverse burden of proof’ provisions of s. 63A of Sex Discrimination Act … Continue reading Pothecary Witham Weld (A Firm) and Another v Bullimore and Another: EAT 29 Mar 2010
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003
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
