Click the case name for better results:

Pothecary Witham Weld (A Firm) and Another v Bullimore and Another: EAT 29 Mar 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

Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: CA 2 May 2008

The court was asked as to whether the provisions for the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases was limited to findings of discrimination or extended also to issues of victimisation, and as to whether section 5A had properly incorporated the European Directive. Held: The test in section 54A and in Igen v … Continue reading Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: CA 2 May 2008

Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: EAT 13 Jun 2007

EAT Victimisation Burden of proof Appeal – Perversity challenge on finding important for remedy. Cross-Appeal – Did ET misdirect itself on burden of proof on victimisation claim.As a matter of construction, the provisions of section 54A RRA did not apply to a claim of victimisation under section 2. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie Citations: … Continue reading Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: EAT 13 Jun 2007

Pricewaterhouse Coopers Llp v Popa: EAT 12 Oct 2010

pwc_popaEAT10 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATIONPost employmentBurden of ProofIn determining a claim of post termination victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 the Employment Tribunal did not fail to consider the reason why the employer gave a different form of reference to the Claimant than they would have given to a comparator. They did not fail to … Continue reading Pricewaterhouse Coopers Llp v Popa: EAT 12 Oct 2010

Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another: HL 24 May 2001

The university had imposed a new constitution on its students union, which resulted in the dismissal of the claimant. He sought to assert racial discrimination. Held: The concept of ‘aiding’ somebody in committing discriminatory behaviour under the section, connoted assistance beyond the negligible, but did not need to be substantial or productive. The word should … Continue reading Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another: HL 24 May 2001

Acts

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