EAT Equality Act 2010 section 27B. Victimisation. The claimant applied for a vacancy advertised by the respondent. He was qualified for the post and was the only applicant. The respondent shortlisted him but prior to interview decided to withdraw the vacancy. The HR department of the respondent thought that there was a high risk of … Continue reading Das v Ayrshire and Arran Health Board (Equality Act 2010 Section 27B Victimisation): EAT 28 Nov 2014
The tenant had been secure but had his tenancy had been reduced to an insecure demoted tenancy after he was accused of anti-social behaviour. He had not himself been accused of any misbehaviour, but it was said that he should have controlled his family members. The county court had been unwilling to allow any challenge … Continue reading Manchester City Council v Pinnock: SC 3 Nov 2010
The claimants, in the US awaiting execution for murders, challenged the permitting by the defendant for export of the chemical Sodium Thipental which would be used for their execution. The respondent said that its use in general anaesthesia practice meant that it was not subject to control. The claimants said that the export was a … Continue reading Zagorski and Baze, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Others: Admn 29 Nov 2010
EAT Contract of Employment : Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof The Employment Tribunal had concluded that a contract of employment which stated that the Claimant was employed to work a minimum of 48 hours in fact meant a maximum of 48 hours. That finding was perverse: no one had … Continue reading Unwin v Oltec Group Trading Ltd and Another (Contract of Employment : Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term): EAT 13 Feb 2015
The Appellant appealed against the ruling of the Employment Tribunal at a Preliminary Hearing that certain of his race discrimination and racial harassment claims should be struck out because they were out of time. The appeal was allowed, on the basis that the Tribunal had not addressed the Appellant’s contention that apparently disparate acts and … Continue reading Sridhar v Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Practice and Procedure : Race Discrimination): EAT 21 Jul 2020
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Frustration DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination For the purposes of claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract the Respondent argued, and the Employment Tribunal accepted, that the Claimant’s contract came to an end by virtue of the doctrine of frustration. It was argued that this doctrine had no … Continue reading Warner v Armfield Retail and Leisure Ltd (Contract of Employment : Frustration): EAT 8 Oct 2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment Amendment of pleadings. The Claimant submitted a form ET1 alleging that she had made protected disclosures and had suffered detriment due to that; and that she was disabled and the Respondent had refused to make reasonable adjustments. She submitted an agenda for a Case Management Discussion (CMD) in which … Continue reading Oliphant v Boots Management Services Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Amendment): EAT 19 Jun 2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDUREApplication/claimWithdrawalThere was an argument before the Employment Tribunal on the question whether any claim under section 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010 had been withdrawn by the terms of a response put in by the Claimant in answer to an order of the Employment Tribunal. On analysis, two questions had to be … Continue reading Northumberland County Council v Trebillcock (Practice and Procedure : Application or Claim): EAT 25 Apr 2013
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDUREApplication/claimWithdrawalThere was an argument before the Employment Tribunal on the question whether any claim under section 18(4) of the Equality Act 2010 had been withdrawn by the terms of a response put in by the Claimant in answer to an order of the Employment Tribunal. On analysis, two questions had to be … Continue reading Northumberland County Council v Trebillcock (Practice and Procedure : Application/Claim): EAT 25 Jun 2013
The claimant solicitors had failed to submit their tender for a new contract in time. The respondent refused to accept the late submission. The claimant said that the respondent had not directly notified it of the deadline and so failed to meet its obligations under the 2006 Act and European law, and that the refusal … Continue reading Azam and Co v Legal Services Commission: ChD 5 May 2010
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
The claimant solicitor said that the compulsory retirement from his partnership on age grounds was discriminatory, and that the UK Regulations had not implemented the Directive fully. Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the provision as to allow the progression of younger members of the practice. This aim was recognised by the legislation, and … Continue reading Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership): CA 28 Jul 2010
(Grand Chamber) The court ruled admissible claims against the United Kingdom by 13 persons entitled to British State pensions for violation of article 14 of the Convention in combination with article 1 of the First Protocol. All the claimants had earned pensions by working in Britain, but had emigrated to South Africa, Australia or Canada … Continue reading Carson and Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Mar 2010
An action against the defendant as chairman of the British National Party had been settled in January 2010 on the basis of an undertaking from him that the constitution of the Party would be amended to comply with the requirements of the 2006 Act. Though the defendant had issued an amendment, the Commission now complained … Continue reading Commission for Equality and Human Rights v Griffin and Others: Admn 17 Dec 2010
The claimant sought a declaration that the duty set out in the 1995 Act applies to the discharge of duties, and to the exercise of powers, by local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 being the part entitled ‘Homelessness’. The defendant argued that (1) the section concerned only the general formulation … Continue reading Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield: CA 12 Oct 2010
hmlr_grantEAT10 EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISMHARASSMENT – ConductPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-BarkeAn Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 complaints of discrimination, and 5 out of 12 of unlawful harassment, were made out. None of the acts complained of, save possibly one, was obviously and intrinsically discriminatory. Each finding relied on the … Continue reading HM Land Registry v Grant: EAT 15 Apr 2010
JDR_fttUTAA1410 The case raises issues concerning: (i) the application of the Equality Act 2010 to judicial decisions; and (ii) the exercise of the tribunal’s power to reject an agreed submission on the decision that should be made. Jacobs UTJ  UKUT 478 (AAC) Bailii Equality Act 2010 England and Wales Personal Injury Updated: 02 November … Continue reading R (JDR) v First-Tier Tribunal and CICA (Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including UT) : Other): UTAA 22 Oct 2014
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2. Held: The SSD’s appeal succeeded. ‘jurisdiction’ within the meaning of Article … Continue reading Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening): SC 30 Jun 2010
(Grand Chamber) A Cambodian vessel, The Winner, trafficked drugs on the high seas (Cape Verde). It was detected and boarded by the French authorities, detaining the crew on board and took them on the vessel to France for trial. France was, but Cambodia was not, party to the relevant international drug trafficking conventions, which did … Continue reading Medvedyev And Others v France: ECHR 29 Mar 2010
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 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
The complainant requested a copy of the investigation report into allegations made against a senior official of the public authority. The public authority withheld the report on the basis of the exemptions at sections 31(1)(g), 38, 40(2), and 41 of . .
The claimants said that changes to the Highy Skilled Migrant Programme were unfairly introduced, that they had effectively barred non-EU doctors from applying for first tier doctor appointments, and that the guidance could properly be derived only . .
The Claimant’s claims of direct disability discrimination and harassment had been struck out after a Preliminary Hearing at which the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) had determined he was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. . .
This appeal is primarily concerned with the scope of the rights conferred on agency workers by and the Agency Workers’ Regulations 2010 (‘the AWR’), which implements the Agency Workers Directive (‘the Directive’) into domestic law. The EAT found . .
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
Three out of time appeals dismissed, two of which have no merit. No exceptional grounds exist for the exercise of discretion. . .
F brought proceedings here to seek the return of the child K to Poland from where she had been removed by M. F appealed against refusal of an order for K’s return, citing F’s delay.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge had not allowed for F’s . .
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Part time pensions
The Claimant women were unlawfully excluded from an occupational pension scheme as part-timers, but they would never have joined it if it had been open to them. There . .
The defendants applied for directors’ disqualification proceedings for the claim to be struck out or dismissed on the ground that the respondent had breached their rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights . .
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION – Pregnancy and discrimination
Whether detriment complained of by Claimant was unfavourable treatment on the grounds that she was on maternity leave (Sex Discrimination Act 1975, s3A)? . .
ECHR The applicant had a licence for a pistol and rifle. His was refused another licence, and then the existing licence was withdrawn. His name had been included in a police list in an operational records file . .
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
Contractual redundancy scheme incorporating a cap preventing employees recovering more than they would have earned if they had remained in employment until retirement age – Cap applied . .
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Exclusions/jurisdictions
Was the Claimant ‘ordinarily resident in Great Britain’ for the purposes of section 68(2A)(c) Disability Discrimination Act and regulation 10(2)(c) . .
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Claim in time and effective date of termination
On the Employment Judge’s findings, the claim was presented 3 days out of time, it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant . .
The claimant alleged indirect age discrimination, in not having received a promotion to a post of legal adviser to the defendant. He did not have a law degree and did not want to undertake the study required which would have him acquiring the degree . .
EAT EQUAL PAY – Material factor defence and justification
EQUAL PAY – Indirect discrimination
Appeal from decision of Employment Tribunal on issues remitted by the Court of Appeal in Armstrong v . .
Just satisfaction – friendly settlement . .
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 . .
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .
The Trust appealed against a finding that in terminating an assured tenancy transferred to it from a local authority, it had acted as a hybrid public authority and was subject to controls under the 1998 Act.
Held: (Rix LJ dissenting). The . .
Harassment – Disability Related Discrimination
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
The Employment Tribunal were best placed to make findings of fact about the context and office culture which it did, and which was . .
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Section 15
Discrimination due to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability – proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – section 15 Equality Act 2010
The . .
EQUAL PAY ACT – Article 141/European law
EQUAL PAY ACT – Equal value
EQUAL PAY ACT – Other establishments
1. Although the point is not acte clair, the better view is that article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European . .
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity <
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
In the first appeal (UKEAT/0167/15/LA), the Appellant, the NHS Trust Development Authority . .
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
In the first appeal (UKEAT/0167/15/LA), the Appellant, the NHS Trust Development Authority (‘TDA’), . .
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
Disability Discrimination : Section 15 – ‘I allowed an appeal against the dismissal of the Claimant’s claim of discrimination contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. I held that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of . .
In a Liability Decision which followed a full Merits Hearing, all of the Claimant’s complaints brought pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 by reference to the protected characteristic of disability were dismissed. The Respondent then applied for . .
Whether the provision in the Equality Act 2010 dealing with remedies in a case of unintentional unlawful indirect discrimination is incompatible with EU law; and whether that incompatibility resulted in a failure to award compensation to the . .
In a claim for discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, which party bears the burden of proving that discrimination has or has not occurred? . .
The Claimant, who was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, was dismissed by the Respondent whilst on sickness absence. An Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed, contrary to the provisions of the . .
1. The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its construction of section 61 of the Equality Act 2010 or its impact on the availability of the defence provided by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 22 of that Act.
2. . .
The Employment Judge erred in law in holding that all that is necessary for a person to be an employee in the extended sense for the purposes of section 83(2) Equality Act 2010 is that the person should have entered into a . .
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal by the Claimant against a finding made at a Preliminary Hearing that he was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 as at 20 May 2017, the date of his dismissal. The . .
The Claimant submitted that the Tribunal had erred in finding that there was no ‘protected act’ for the purposes of ss26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. It concluded that the Claimant could not have been harassed or victimised on the ground of sex . .
An employer can defend a claim resulting from the otherwise unlawful discriminatory actions of an employee if it is able to rely on section 109(4) Equality Act 2010 because it can demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the . .
The Claimants were police officers in their 40s who were disabled under Equality Act 2010 and in possession of ‘H1 certificates’ which allowed them immediate access to ‘deferred pension’ on leaving the police.
They left the force under the . .
Practice and Procedure – Case Management
The Claimant presented three claims containing multiple complaints under the Equality Act 2010, of alleged treatment by the Respondents during the course of her employment. In the run-up the Full Merits . .
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Direct disability discrimination
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Section 15
Disability discrimination – direct discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010 ) – . .
Whether employees in Asda’s retail operations are entitled to compare themselves with employees in the distribution centres so that they can rely on section 79(4)(c) of the Equality Act 2010 (‘2010 Act’) or, as regards the period covered by the . .
Whether discrimination by the charity on grounds of sexual orientation is permitted by s.193 Equality Act 2010.
Held: The charity’s appeal failed. . .
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Harassment, Third-Party Harassment
The issue in this appeal is whether s . 26 (1) of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the 2010 Act’) should be interpreted so as to impose liability on an employer for third-party harassment . .
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – disability – disabled person – section 6 Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
In finding that the Claimant, who suffered work related stress, was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the EqA’), . .
The Claimant is pursuing claims of disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, which are defended. It is common ground between the parties that for the purposes of an Equality Act 2010 claim the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights . .
Disability related discrimination – section 15(2) – knowledge; section 15(1)(b) – justification; loss and mitigation; compensation
It was accepted that the Claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 – by reason of . .
Notwithstanding a Tribunal’s colloquial use of the term ‘necessarily’ in the context of determining the date on which a Claimant fell to be assessed as disabled, in accordance with section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 (and in particular as to when it was . .
RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination – Religion and Belief – Indirect Discrimination – Justification – Section 19(2)
Equality Act 2010
Bus drivers employed by the Respondent were required to work five out of seven . .
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent to work in its warehouse. She was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) by reason of suffering . .
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Other forms of victimisation
Victimisation – section 27(3) Equality Act 2010
In 2011, when facing the likelihood that he would fail the assessment required to qualify as a Consultant Cardiothoracic . .
Registration procedure for disability discrimination claims – refusal to register part of a claim as `time barred’ in plainly disputed issue – ignorance or oversight of relevant law (Equality Act 2010, Schedule 17, paras 4(5)(b) (conduct extending . .
Did the London Borough of Barnet Council, as local planning authority, discharge the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 when determining an application for planning permission for the development of a school on land . .
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION – Pregnancy and discrimination
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
Pregnancy discrimination – section 18 Equality Act 2010
Burden of proof – section 136 . .
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Disability discrimination – reasonable adjustments – sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
Unfair dismissal – constructive dismissal – . .
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Direct disability discrimination -Reasonable adjustments – Justification – direct discrimination (section 13 Equality Act 2010) – indirect discrimination (section 19) – failure to make reasonable adjustments (sections 20 . .
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
The Appellant had issued an ET1 including a claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010. He applied out of time to add a claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010, contending that it raised no new facts or . .
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL ; Reason for
EQUALITY ACT 2010 CLAIMS – SECTION 20 REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS SECTION 13 DIRECT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION AND SECTION 15 DISCRIMINATION ARISING FROM . .
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
Direct race discrimination – burden of proof – section 136 Equality Act 2010 – whether the Employment Tribunal had wrongly . .
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Disability discrimination – definition of disability – section 6 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’)
The Claimant, who was pursuing a complaint of disability . .
EAT Sex Discrimination: Direct – Pregnancy and discrimination
In respect of a single finding of unfavourable treatment because of absence on maternity leave under section 18(4) Equality Act 2010, the . .
EAT Disability Discrimination – Section 15 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Justification UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal Appeal Disability discrimination – unfavourable treatment because of something arising from the consequences of disability – justification – section 15 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) The Claimant – Head of English at a secondary comprehensive school operated by the Respondent … Continue reading City of York Council v Grosset: EAT 1 Nov 2016
EAT (Sex Discrimination : Marital Status) SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION HARASSMENT Discrimination – marital status – sexual orientation Qualifications bodies – relevant qualification – sections 53 and 54 Equality Act 2010 Exceptions from liability – religious requirements relating to marriage – schedule 9 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010 Harassment – section 26 Equality Act 2010 The … Continue reading Reverend Canon Pemberton v Reverend Richard Inwood: EAT 7 Dec 2016
EAT (Disability Discrimination: Disability Related Discrimination) The Claimant alleged discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. He raised six complaints. In relation to five of them there was no issue as to their factual basis and the Employment Tribunal was satisfied that they amounted to unfavourable treatment. The issue for the Employment … Continue reading Madani Schools Federation v Uddin: EAT 24 Nov 2016
EAT (Disability Discrimination : Exclusions/Jurisdictions) The first Employment Tribunal determined the Appellant was not a disabled person by reason of his hearing impairment. The second Employment Tribunal (following remission) determined the Appellant was a disabled person having regard to his left shoulder impairment, but that the cumulative effect of his hearing condition together with his … Continue reading Mefful v Merton and Lambeth Citizens Advice Bureau: EAT 6 Oct 2016
The case concerns the extent of a housing authority’s duty of inquiry, in light of the public sector equality duty set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, into whether an applicant for homelessness assistance has a disability requiring special arrangements to be made. Black, Beatson, Sales LJJ  EWCA Civ 1137 Bailii … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Wilson: CA 17 Nov 2016
Jurisdictional Points : Extension of Time: Reasonably Practicable JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable The Claimant had lodged various claims of unfair dismissal and sex (pregnancy related) discrimination, all outwith the relevant three month time limits. During the statutory three month period the Claimant had instructed solicitors and instructed them to raise … Continue reading Tesco Stores Ltd v Kayani: EAT 8 Sep 2016
EAT Race Discrimination: Indirect – JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable Indirect race discrimination – claim in time – continuing act – section 123(3) Equality Act 2010 – just and equitable extension of time The Respondent had operated an indirectly discriminatory policy of under-paying those with ’employability issues’ – effectively where it … Continue reading Fairlead Maritime Ltd v Parsoya: EAT 30 Oct 2016
EAT Practice and Procedure : Estoppel or Abuse of Process PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review The Claimant had brought a number of claims against his employer, the Respondent. A Preliminary Hearing had been fixed to determine all issues of time bar raised by the Respondent. An Employment Tribunal decided that one of the claims (Claim … Continue reading Pugh v RT Electrics Ltd: EAT 6 Sep 2016
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claims for unfair dismissal and otherwise. The union appealed against a finding in favour of the claim for discrimination (and otherwise) on account of his religion or belief, namely ‘left wing democratic socialism’. At the EAT all claims were dismissed. Underhill, Briggs LJJ  EWCA Civ 1049 Bailii … Continue reading Henderson v The General Municipal and Boilermakers Union: CA 11 Oct 2016
EAT Jurisdictional Points : Worker, Employee or Neither HARASSMENT SEX DISCRIMINATION – Direct TRADE UNION RIGHTS The appeal concerned sexual harassment by elected officers of the Respondent trade union against a paid (employed) officer. 1. The ET held that the elected officers were employees of the Respondent under the extended definition in section 83(2) of … Continue reading Unite The Union v Nailard: EAT 27 Sep 2016
EAT Practice and Procedure: Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity JURISDICTIONAL POINTS The Claimant complained that the Employment Tribunal (1) failed to determine some issues of sex discrimination which she put forward; (2) misapplied section 123(3) of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to find that the Respondent had been responsible for conduct extending over a … Continue reading Greco v General Physics UK Ltd: EAT 2 Aug 2016
EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability Related Discrimination – Justification The Claimant, a serving police officer who had a disability by virtue of a serious motor cycle accident, was made subject to the ‘Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure’ laid down in the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012. He complained to the Employment Tribunal that a series of steps taken at … Continue reading Buchanan v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: EAT 30 Sep 2016
EAT Debarred – Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments The Employment Tribunal did not err in determining the claim for failing to make reasonable adjustments. They did not reach their decision on a different basis from that which the Claimant raised with her employer and set out in her Particulars of … Continue reading Lowmoore Nursing Home Ltd v Smith: EAT 21 Jun 2016
Age Discrimination – Direct Age Discrimination – section 13 Equality Act 2010 – burden of proof The Claimant was a solicitor who had not been offered a new partnership under a restructuring exercise carried out by the Respondent firm, in which he had been a limited equity partner (‘LEP’). He complained this was because of … Continue reading Fennell v Foot Anstey Llp: EAT 28 Jul 2016
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
EAT Practice and Procedure: Review – Human Rights – In the B and M appeal (UKEAT/0139/16/RN) the Employment Judge was entitled to dismiss a reconsideration application by the Claimant on the basis (a) that, as a matter of fact, the Claimant’s representative was aware of the reconsideration (telephone) hearing but failed to take part and … Continue reading Warner v B and M Europe Ltd: EAT 13 Jul 2016
EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability Related Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal – The Tribunal below was required under a decision of the Appeal Tribunal, subsequently (after the Tribunal’s decision) found by the Court of Appeal to have been in error, to apply the wrong comparison when determining claims for breach … Continue reading Perratt v The City of Cardiff Council: EAT 28 Jun 2016
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its application of section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. It did not err in law, nor was it perverse, in deciding that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. David Richardson … Continue reading Vodafone Ltd v Winfield (Jurisdictional Points: Extension of Time: Just and Equitable): EAT 25 Apr 2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked whether discrimination because of, or on grounds of, immigration status amounts to discrimination because of, or … Continue reading Taiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others: SC 22 Jun 2016