Judges: Mr Justice Mummery (President) Citations: [1995] UKEAT 107 – 93 – 2702 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.208917
A claim for sex discrimination based on an age requirement was wrongly based. The proportion of mature graduates was irrelevant in the appropriate pool. The Court cautioned tribunals to avoid placing artificial limitations on the scope of the pool and indicated that it should comprise all those persons, male and female, who satisfied, or would … Continue reading Jones v University of Manchester: CA 10 Mar 1993
Mrs Brown was employed by Rentokil as a driver, transporting and changing ‘Sanitact’ units in shops. In her view, it was heavy work. She told Rentokil that she was pregnant. She had difficulties associated with the pregnancy. From 16 August 1990 onwards, she submitted a succession of four-week certificates mentioning various pregnancy-related disorders. She did … Continue reading Brown v Rentokil Ltd: IHCS 10 Mar 1995
EAT Sex discrimination – Comparison When a male manager entered the women’s toilets and shouted at a woman on her break, the correct question which should be asked is this: would the Respondent, in the form of a female manager, with the same robust management style as this manager, treat a male cleaner having the … Continue reading Kettle Produce Ltd v Ward: EAT 8 Nov 2006
The employer appealed a finding of sex discrimination. The court criticised severely the way that the two firms of solicitors had failed to work together to put the real issues before the court. It was wrong for a party to seek to withhold documents which were relevant to the issues before the court. The behaviour … Continue reading The Premium Cream Co Ltd v K Parsons: EAT 30 Jan 2002
The claimant was given a senior post in the force, but within the same division in which her policeman husband held a more senior post. The appointment was rescinded, and she claimed sex discrimination. She was found to have been indirectly discriminated against because of the marital relationship. The Force had suggested that the particular … Continue reading The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham: EAT 26 Sep 2001
The Tribunal considered the difficulties arising where one party was not represented, but where the case gave rise to difficult questions of law. In this case the claimant alleged sex discrimination in the context of rostering arrangements making demands on her as a sole parent. The defendant appealed against a finding that it was in … Continue reading London Underground Ltd v Edwards: EAT 14 Feb 1995
The Lord Chancellor’s action in appointing to a special adviser’s post someone he already knew and trusted, without first advertising the post openly, was not an act of sex or race discrimination. Had they applied, they would not have been appointed because they were not personally known to the Lord Chancellor. In practice a post … Continue reading Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor’s Department: CA 22 Nov 2001
The local authority’s redundancy policy required the school first to choose for redundancy those on fixed term temporary contracts. The applicant’s contract had not been renewed, and she had been replaced by a teacher with lesser qualifications. The policy adversely affect more women than men and was indirect discrimination, and it was for the school … Continue reading Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls’ School and Oxfordshire County Council: CA 21 Mar 2001
Industrial Tribunals to receive European guidance on sexual harassment. Citations: Times 31-May-1993, [1993] UKEAT 62 – 93 – 1405 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(a) Citing: Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987 Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient ReasonsTribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more … Continue reading Wardman v Carpenter Farrer Partnership: EAT 14 May 1993
A woman school technician was subjected to a campaign of sexual harassment by two fellow male non-managerial technicians. She sought a transfer. Held: The real question was whether the sexual harassment was to the detriment of the applicant within section 6(2)(b). The claim of sex discrimination succeeded.Lord McDonald said: ‘It was argued on behalf of … Continue reading Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council: EAT 1985
The applicant had been taken on to stand in for an employee taking maternity leave. She herself became pregnant, and she was dismissed. Her clam for sex discrimination had been rejected by the industrial tribunal and EAT. Held: Since a man who had been recruited in the same situation would have been dismissed if he … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd: CA 20 Dec 1991
The applicant complained that she was dismissed when her employers learned that she was pregnant. Held: 1(1) (a) and 5(3) of the 1975 Act were to be interpreted as meaning that where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact that pregnancy was the reason for her temporary unavailability at a time … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2): HL 20 Oct 1995
An employee mobility clause in a contract must be justified, or it may be discriminatory against women.The potentially discriminatory effect on the complainant of the introduction of a ‘mobility clause’ to her contract of employment was a requirement capable of amounting to an act of discrimination under Sections 1(1)(b) and 6 and of rendering the … Continue reading Meade-Hill and Another v The British Council: CA 7 Apr 1995
The claimant asserted constructive dismissal. Held: The trbunal rejected a submission that the absence of any provision for vicarious liability in the 1978 Act indicated that the general rule that an employer is vicariously liable for his employee’s acts done in the course of his employment did not apply. Knox J: ‘We do not regard … Continue reading Hilton International Hotels v Protopapa: EAT 1990
The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board’s treatment of her complaint. The complaint now was solely as to her treatment by the Board. Held: The body was a … Continue reading Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: CA 20 Jul 2004
The claimant had been a cook. A poster was put up at work redrawn to show her in a sexually suggestive pose. The court now considered an appeal agreed by consent by the parties. Held: Since the case had been heard, the Court of Appeal in Tower Boot had amended the law, and the appeal … Continue reading AB v CD: EAT 13 Nov 1997
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case. Held: Questions of the burden of proof are very common in discrimination cases: ‘The factual content of the cases does not simply … Continue reading Madarassy v Nomura International Plc: CA 26 Jan 2007
The claimant sought increased maternity pay. Before beginning her maternity leave she had been awarded a pay increase, but it was not backdated so as to affect the period upon which the calculation of her average pay was based. The court made a detailed comparison of the regimes for protection under the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Alabaster v Barclays Bank Plc and Another: CA 3 May 2005
The complainant was a female lorry driver, aged 23, employed by a firm specialising in the carriage of chemicals. One chemical was potentially embryotoxic, and the manufacturers warned that special precautions should be taken to avoid women of child-bearing age being exposed to it. The employers therefore refused to allow the complainant to drive lorries … Continue reading Page v Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd: EAT 1981
A female art teacher and deputy department head applied in 1975 to be department head at her school. In September a man was appointed instead. The 1975 Act came into force on 29th December. On 1st January 1996 she complained to the Tribunal on the basis that by appointing a man the employers discriminated against … Continue reading Amies v Inner London Education Authority: EAT 1977
Three school dinner ladies had been employed by the Council at National Rates of pay and conditions. Their work which was almost exclusively carried out by females had been rated as of equal value to that of men employed by the council at various establishments. Following compulsory tendering the council declared some of the catering … Continue reading Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council: HL 7 Jul 1995
The respondent sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that he was an appropriate respondent to the claimant’s claim for sex discrimination. The claimant had been a police officer, and claimed she had been the subject of repeated and unwanted sexual advances from the respondent. He argued that only the … Continue reading SPV v AM and Another: CA 27 Aug 1999
EAT Sex Discrimination : Comparison – Justification The Employment Tribunal did not err in deciding that a provision criterion or practice (‘PCP’) which required train drivers employed by the First Respondent to work at least 50% of their roster and on a number of Saturdays put women at a particular disadvantage. They correctly based their … Continue reading XC Trains Ltd v CD and Others: EAT 28 Jul 2016
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear idea of when it would be possible for him … Continue reading Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissalClaimant, of (northern) Sudanese ethnic origin, applied for promotion to role of ‘Sudan researcher’ for Amnesty International – Not appointed because Amnesty believed that the appointment of a person of her ethnic origin would compromise … Continue reading Amnesty International v Ahmed: EAT 13 Aug 2009
Questions on pregnancy dismissals included unavailability at required time. The correct comparison under the Act of 1975 was between the pregnant woman and: ‘a hypothetical man who would also be unavailable at the critical time. The relevant circumstance for the purposes of the comparison required by section 5(3) to be made is expected unavailability at … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1): HL 3 Mar 1993
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history. Held: The school’s appeal failed. English law may be at fault because it made no allowance for any justification of direct … Continue reading E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another: SC 16 Dec 2009
Community Law protects women from dismissal during pregnancy save in exceptional circumstances. It was discriminatory to dismiss a female not on a fixed term contract for pregnancy. The Court rejected an interpretation of the Directive that would have rendered its provisions ineffective. The dismissal of a pregnant woman recruited for an indefinite period cannot be … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo: ECJ 14 Jul 1994
The claimant, a male to female transsexual, challenged a decision by the respondent to refuse breast augmentation treatment. The Trust had a policy ‘GRS is a Low Priority treatment due to the limited evidence of clinical effectiveness and is not routinely funded.’ Held: The claim for judicial review failed. There was no general medical concensus … Continue reading AC v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust, Equality and Human Rights Commissions intervening: Admn 25 May 2010
The charity appealed against refusal of permission to amend its charitable objects as set out in the memorandum of association. The charity was successful as an adoption agency particularly in placing children who would otherwise have had difficulty finding a home, following the principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and it wanted to restrict its … Continue reading Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v Charity Commission for England and Wales and Another: ChD 17 Mar 2010
The claimant asserted associative disability discrimination. She was the carer for her disabled son.
Held: To succeed the claimant would have to show that associative discrimination was prohibited by the directive and that the 1995 Act could . .
