Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Discrimination - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 37 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 McLoughlin v Queen's University of Belfast; CANI 1995 - [1995] NI 82

 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another; QBD 1995 - [1995] ICR 889

 
 Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur and Others (No 2); CA 1995 - [1995] IRLR 87
 
London Underground Ltd v Edwards [1995] UKEAT 241_94_1402
14 Feb 1995
EAT
Mummery P J
Employment, Discrimination
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 breach of section 1 of the 1975 Act.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v General Medical Council Ex Parte Virik Times, 17 February 1995; Ind Summary, 01 May 1995
17 Feb 1995
QBD

Discrimination, Health Professions
the General Medical Council may not impose a higher standard on foreign doctors for qualification. Such a requirement is discriminatory.
1 Citers


 
Post Office v Adekeye Times, 23 February 1995
23 Feb 1995
EAT

Discrimination
An Industrial Tribunal may not look at a claim of race discrimination which had taken place in the context of a disciplinary appeal following a dismissal. The act of discrimination had not been in the course of the employment.
Race Relations Act 1976 4(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority [1995] UKEAT 334_93_0103; [1995] IRLR 574
1 Mar 1995
EAT
Mummery J
Employment, Discrimination
The employee complained of his employer's repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time. Held. Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing discrimination: "the tribunal erred in law in failing to treat the acts complained of on regrading and failure to give the opportunity to act up as continuing acts . . in our view the allegations amount to a prima facie case that there was a continuing act. The continuing act was in the form of maintaining a practice which, when followed or applied, excluded Mr Owusu from regrading or opportunities to act up.
The position is that an act does not extend over a period simply because the doing of the act has continuing consequences. A specific decision not to upgrade may be a specific act with continuing consequences. The continuing consequences do not make it a continuing act. On the other hand, an act does extend over a period of time if it takes the form of some policy, rule or practice, in accordance with which decisions are taken from time to time. What is continuing is alleged in this case to be a practice which results in consistent decisions discriminatory of Mr Owusu.
It would be a matter of evidence for the tribunal as to whether such a practice . . in fact exists. It may be that, when explanations are given by the respondents, it will be shown that there is no link between one instance and another, no linking practice but a matter of one-off decisions with different explanations which cannot constitute a practice."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Brown v Rentokil Ltd; IHCS 10-Mar-1995 - Times, 10 March 1995
 
Tyldesley v TML Plastics Ltd [1995] UKEAT 1044_93_2303; [1996] IRLR 395
23 Mar 1995
EAT
Mummery J
Employment, Discrimination
Mrs Tyldesley complained that she had been paid less than a male comparator. The employer said the reason for this was that the comparator understood and was committed to the concept of total quality management. The tribunal had found that in relying on a s.1(3) defence the employer had to show, in addition to their being a variation genuinely due to a material factor which was not the difference in sex, the difference was objectively justified. Held: The claimant's appeal succeeded. It was not necessary in order to establish the defence to show objective justification unless the factor relied on was one which affected a considerably higher proportion of women than men, so as to be indirectly discriminatory and thus tainted by sex discrimination. Thus, it followed that it was sufficient if the employer genuinely believed (even if mistaken and even if the belief was not reasonable) that the factor was material: "the industrial tribunal erred in law in directing itself that the explanation for the difference in pay had to be objectively justified. It was sufficient in law that the explanation itself caused the difference or was a sufficient influence to be significant and relevant, whether or not that explanation was objectively justified.”
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tower Boot Company Ltd v Jones [1995] UKEAT 56_94_2703; [1995] IRLR 529
27 Mar 1995
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The company appealed against a finding of race discrimination. Held: As a matter of law the concept of vicarious liability provided for in Section 41(1) of the Act, identical to that under Section 32(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Race Relations Act 1976
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Meade-Hill and Another v The British Council [1995] EWCA Civ 33; [1995] IRLR 478; [1996] 1 All ER 79; [1995] ICR 847
7 Apr 1995
CA
Millett LJ, Waite LJ
Discrimination
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 clause unenforceable under Section 77(2). Millett LJ said that the fact that the discrimination was in the form of a contract clause: "The contract is merely the means by which the employers' requirement is applied to her".
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b) 6 77(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Meade-Hill and Another v British Council Independent, 26 April 1995; Times, 14 April 1995
14 Apr 1995
CA

Employment, Discrimination
An employee mobility clause in a contract must be justified, or it may be discriminatory against women.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(1) 77(2)
1 Citers


 
Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark v Dansk Industri Times, 23 June 1995; [1996] ICR 51; C-400/93; [1995] EUECJ C-400/93
31 May 1995
ECJ

Discrimination, European
Equal pay provisions apply to piece rate work- Employer to justify differences. where significant statistics disclose an appreciable difference in pay between two jobs of equal value, one of which is carried out almost exclusively by women and the other predominantly by men, so that there is a prima facie case of sex discrimination, article 119 of the EEC Treaty requires the employer to show that that difference is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
EECTreaty Art 177
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others Times, 13 June 1995; Independent, 08 June 1995
7 Jun 1995
QBD
Simon Brown LJ and Curtis J
Employment, Administrative, Human Rights, Discrimination, Armed Forces
An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ´The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.' After referring to changes of attitude in society towards same-sex relationships: "I regard the progressive development and refinement of public and professional opinion at home and abroad, here very briefly described, as an important feature of this case. A belief which represented unquestioned orthodoxy in year X may have become questionable by year Y and unsustainable by year Z. Public and professional opinion are a continuum."
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: "It is, inevitably, common ground that the United Kingdom's obligation, [under article 8] binding in international law, to respect and secure compliance with this article is not one that is enforceable by domestic courts. The relevance of the Convention in the present context is as background to the complaint of irrationality. The fact that a decision-maker failed to take account of convention obligations when exercising an administrative discretion is not of itself a ground for impugning that exercise of discretion."
European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others [1995] UKEAT 413_94_0607
6 Jul 1995
EAT
Holland J
Employment, Discrimination
The employer appealed against a decision by the tribunal that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimants' claims.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council Times, 07 July 1995; Independent, 07 July 1995; [1995] ICR 833
7 Jul 1995
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Discrimination
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 assistants redundant and dismissed them and re-employed them through the direct service organization at rates of pay that in the majority of cases were below Joint Council Rates. Held: The tribunal’s conclusions that the council had not shown that the variation was generally due to a material factor other than the difference of sex was upheld. Where jobs were rated as being of equal value, the fact of others paying less to women is not sufficient to justify treating them differently.
After referring to section 1(3) Lord Slynn said: "There has been much argument in this case as to the relationship between section 1 of the Act of 1970 and section 1 of the Act of 1975. The latter distinguishes between (a) a case where an employer on the ground of her sex treats a woman less favourably than he treats or would treat a man (section 1(1)(a)), and (b) a case where the employer applies to a woman a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to a man but which is such that the proportion of women who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of men who can comply with it and which the employer cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the sex of the person to whom it is applied and which is to the detriment of a woman because she cannot comply with it (section 1(1)(b)). The first (a) is commonly referred to as "direct" discrimination, the latter ((b) as "indirect" discrimination. It is submitted that this distinction must be introduced equally into the Act of 1970. For my part I do not accept that this is so. There is no provision in the Act of 1975 which expressly incorporates the distinction into the Act of 1970 even though Schedule I to the Act of 1975 incorporated a number of amendments into the Act of 1970 and even though Part II of that Schedule set out the Act of 1970 in full in its amended form.
In my opinion the Act of 1970 must be interpreted in its amended form without bringing in the distinction between so-called "direct" and "indirect" discrimination. The relevant question under the Act of 1970 is whether equal treatment has been accorded to men and women employed on like work or for men and women employed on work rated as equivalent. Whether they are employed on work rated as equivalent depends on whether the woman’s job and the man’s job had been given an equal value in terms of the demand made on a worker under various headings on a study undertaken with a view to evaluating in those terms the jobs to be done by all or any of the employees in an undertaking (section 1 (5).)
In the present case it is plain that such evaluation was made and the women were found to be engaged on work rated as equivalent to work done by men. That is sufficient for the women to be entitled to a declaration by the industrial tribunal in their favour unless section 1 (3) of the Act as set out previously is satisfied.
This was the question for the industrial tribunal to consider. By a majority they were satisfied that the council had failed to show that the variation between the applicants' contracts and those of their male comparators was due to a material factor which was not the difference of sex.”
Equal Pay Act 1970 1(3) - Sex Discrimination Act 1975
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another; CA 3-Aug-1995 - Gazette, 08 August 1995; Times, 03 August 1995

 
 Secretary of State for Social Security and Chief Adjudication Officer v Graham and others); ECJ 11-Aug-1995 - Times, 25 September 1995; Ind Summary, 09 October 1995; C-92/94; [1995] EUECJ C-92/94

 
 Sirdar v Ministry of Defence; EAT 15-Sep-1995 - [1995] UKEAT 978_95_1509
 
O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School [1995] UKEAT 561_95_1210
12 Oct 1995
EAT
Mummery J P
Employment, Discrimination
The claimant had lodged an appeal against a rejection of her claim of sex discrimination, and against the amount of damages awarded on the success of her claim of unfair dismissal. After rejection of her request for a review, her counsel had lodged a letter withdrawing her appeal. She then received a reply from the European Commission suggesting that her claim of sex discrimination, based upon her dismissal for becoming pregnant by a Roman Catholic Priest, may indeed have been discriminatory. Held: The view taken by the tribunal was not obviously correct, and the interests of justice required the arguments to be explored. The review was re-instated.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen Times, 26 October 1995; C-450/93; [1995] EUECJ C-450/93; [1995] ECR I-3051
17 Oct 1995
ECJ

Discrimination
An automatic preference of women ceteris paribus was discriminatory and unlawful. Any derogation from article 2.4 must be interpreted strictly.
Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 76/207/EEC
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Donald Claudius D'Souza v Lambeth Borough Council
18 Oct 1995
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D'Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused. Held: An award of damages was made for the failure to re-instate.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Regina v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Richardson Independent, 17 November 1995; Times, 27 October 1995; C-137/94; [1995] EUECJ C-137/94
19 Oct 1995
ECJ

Benefits, Discrimination, European
ECJ Different ages for prescription charges between sexes were an unlawful discrimination. Pension differences were no justification for different eligibility for prescription.
Council Directive 79/7/EEC
[ Bailii ]

 
 Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2); HL 20-Oct-1995 - Independent, 26 October 1995; Times, 20 October 1995; [1995] ICR 1021; [1995] UKHL 13; [1995] 1 WLR 1454; [1996] 2 CMLR 990; [1995] IRLR 645; [1995] 4 All ER 577

 
 Leighton v Michael and Another; EAT 26-Oct-1995 - Times, 26 October 1995; [1995] ICR 1091
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Defence Ex Parte Smith; Regina v Same Ex Parte Grady Etc Times, 06 November 1995; [1996] QB 517
6 Nov 1995
CA
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Employment, Discrimination, Armed Forces
A ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces was not irrational, and the challenge to the ban failed. The greater the policy content of a decision, and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more hesitant the court must necessarily be in holding a decision to be irrational. Where decisions of a policy-laden, esoteric or security-based nature are in issue even greater caution than normal must be shown in applying the test, but the test itself is sufficiently flexible to cover all situations. “The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.” Profound cultural changes do take time, but "A belief which represented unquestioned orthodoxy in year X may have become questionable by year Y and unsustainable by year Z."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Hussain and Others v J H Walker Ltd; CA 13-Nov-1995 - Times, 13 November 1995
 
Caruana v Manchester Airport Plc [1995] UKEAT 687_94_1411
14 Nov 1995
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mensah v Royal College of Midwives [1995] UKEAT 124_94_1711
17 Nov 1995
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Race Relations Act 1976
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
DJM International Ltd v Nicholas Times, 22 November 1995
22 Nov 1995
EAT

Discrimination
Sex Discrimination claim persisted through transfer of undertaking.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)

 
Bramhill v Chief Adjudication Officer Gazette, 29 November 1995; [1995] 2 CLMR 35
29 Nov 1995
ECJ

Discrimination, European
Conditions were validly attached to the removal of a discriminatory rule on pensions.

 
Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth [1995] UKEAT 1056_95_0412
4 Dec 1995
EAT
Mummery P J
Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Adoko v The Law Society [1995] UKEAT 694_95_0412
4 Dec 1995
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The claimant sought leave to appeal against dismissal of his claim for race discrimination.
Race Relations Act 1976
[ Bailii ]
 
Megner and Scheffel v Innungskrankenkasse Vorderpfalz C-444/93; [1995] EUECJ C-444/93
14 Dec 1995
ECJ

European, Discrimination
The mere fact that the legislative provision affects far more women than men at work cannot be regarded as a breach of Article 119 of the Treaty.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Inge Nolte v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover C-317/93; [1995] ECR I-4625; [1995] EUECJ C-317/93
14 Dec 1995
ECJ

European, Discrimination
Europa Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning that persons in employment which is regarded as minor because it regularly consists of fewer than 15 hours' work a week and regularly attracts remuneration of up to one-seventh of the average monthly salary form part of the working population within the meaning of Article 2 of that directive and therefore fall within its scope ratione personae. The fact that a person' s earnings from employment do not cover all his needs cannot prevent him from being under Community law a worker or a member of the working population. 2. Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions under which employment regularly consisting of fewer than 15 hours' work a week and regularly attracting remuneration of up to one-seventh of the average monthly salary is excluded from the statutory old-age insurance scheme, even where they affect considerably more women than men, since the national legislature was reasonably entitled to consider that the legislation in question was necessary in order to achieve a social policy aim unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. That will be the case where the exclusion of such employment from compulsory insurance corresponds to a structural principle of a contributory social security scheme, is the only means of satisfying a social demand for such employment and is designed to avoid an increase in unlawful employment and devices circumventing social legislation.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Reebok International Ltd v Crompton [1995] UKEAT 1225_95_2012
20 Dec 1995
EAT
Mummery J P
Employment, Discrimination
Appeal agaiinst extension of time given for filing sex discrimination case.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7691)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Ministry of Defence -v Wheeler; EAT 22-Dec-1995 - Times, 22 December 1995
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.