Click the case name for better results:

Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation after their primary discrimination claims. Held: The 1975 and 1976 Acts were similarly phrased and the wording in the 1995 … Continue reading Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

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

Allen and others v GMB: CA 16 Jul 2008

The claimants were members of the defendant trades union which settled their claims for sex discrimination against local authorities. They said that the union had entered into a settlement which still discriminated against them, and that therefore the union was itself guilty of indirect sex discrimination. Held: The claimants’ appeal succeeded, and the matter was … Continue reading Allen and others v GMB: CA 16 Jul 2008

Hillman v BBC Resources Ltd: EAT 30 Mar 2004

EAT Alleged failure by the ET to make appropriate findings of fact, to deal properly with issue of comparators, and to follow the process indicated in the Barton case in respect of the transfer of the burden of proof (section 63A Sex Discrimination Act 1975) – all dismissed – no order for costs.- leave to … Continue reading Hillman v BBC Resources Ltd: EAT 30 Mar 2004

The Lord Chancellor and Another v Coker and Another: EAT 17 Jan 2001

Appeal at the instance of the Lord Chancellor and his department against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that in the selection of a special adviser he contravened the provisions in respect of the first respondent, as she now is, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and in respect of the second respondent, as she now … Continue reading The Lord Chancellor and Another v Coker and Another: EAT 17 Jan 2001

A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another: CA 5 Nov 2002

The appellant had undergone a male to female sex change, but was refused employment by the respondent before the Human Rights Act came into effect. Held: Although the Human Rights Act could not apply, the act was in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive and discrimination. The 1999 regulations were incompatible with the provisions of … Continue reading A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another: CA 5 Nov 2002

Smith v Gardner Merchant Ltd: CA 14 Jul 1998

A male homosexual barman complained of offensive remarks about his sexuality from a female colleague. Held: When considering whether a gay man has been discriminated against on the grounds of his sex, by means of abuse in work-place, the proper comparator to test for discrimination is how a gay woman would have been treated. The … Continue reading Smith v Gardner Merchant Ltd: CA 14 Jul 1998

Meade-Hill and Another v The British Council: CA 7 Apr 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

Jones v University of Manchester: CA 10 Mar 1993

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

Hilton International Hotels v Protopapa: EAT 1990

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

Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc): CA 18 Jul 2003

The employee was a transsexual, awaiting completion of surgical transformation to a woman. The employer said she could not use the female toilet facilities, but was offered use of the unisex disabled facilities. Held: The 1975 Act provides for a category of persons who are not to be discriminated against. By virtue of the definition … Continue reading Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc): CA 18 Jul 2003

Sunderland City Council v Brennan and Others: EAT 2 May 2012

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Contribution PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure (1) An employment tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 between persons jointly or concurrently liable for damage caused by an act of unlawful discrimination. Nor in any event does the 1978 Act create such … Continue reading Sunderland City Council v Brennan and Others: EAT 2 May 2012

MacDonald v Ministry of Defence: EAT 19 Sep 2000

The appellant, a homosexual, appealed against rejection of his claims for sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Judges: Lotd Johnston Citations: [2000] UKEAT 0121 – 00 – 1909, [2001] ICR 1, [2001] Emp LR 105, [2001] HRLR 5, [2000] IRLR 748, [2001] 1 All ER 620 Links: Bailii Statutes: Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC, Sex Discrimination Act … Continue reading MacDonald v Ministry of Defence: EAT 19 Sep 2000

Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd: EAT 21 Oct 2011

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Claim In Time and Effective Date of Termination – More than three weeks after the employer decided against the Claimant’s request for flexible working, she resigned in writing with immediate effect on 19 July, claiming constructive dismissal. The employer invited her in to discuss it and she affirmed in writing her … Continue reading Little v Richmond Pharmacology Ltd: EAT 21 Oct 2011

Beresford v Sovereign House Estates and Another: EAT 29 Nov 2011

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Parties The Claimant brought proceedings against the First Respondents under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, partly arising out of alleged harassment by the Appellant, a former colleague. She advanced no claim against the Appellant and made it clear that she had no wish to do so; but the First Respondents … Continue reading Beresford v Sovereign House Estates and Another: EAT 29 Nov 2011

M H Marshall v Southampton And South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching): ECJ 26 Feb 1986

ECJ The court considered the measure of compensation in a successful claim for sex discrimination arising from the health authority’s provision of an earlier compulsory retirement age for women compared with that for men in the same employment. The health authority paid her the maximum sum of pounds 6,250 which was then permitted as compensation … Continue reading M H Marshall v Southampton And South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching): ECJ 26 Feb 1986

Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: CA 20 Jul 2004

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

National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd v Philpott: EAT 31 Jan 1997

The federation, an organisation supporting and promoting the interests of small firms, is ‘an employers organisation’ for sex discrimination purposes. Citations: Times 13-Feb-1997, [1997] UKEAT 787 – 96 – 3101 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 12 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment, Discrimination Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.207136

McWilliam and Others v Glasgow City Council: EAT 9 Mar 2011

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Compromise Compromise agreements. Whether compliance with section 77(4B) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Equal pay Claimants. No prior claims presented to Employment Tribunal. Whether the compromise agreements related to ‘particular complaints’? Whether the Claimants ‘received advice’ from an ‘independent adviser’? Whether their solicitors were ‘acting in the … Continue reading McWilliam and Others v Glasgow City Council: EAT 9 Mar 2011

Clarke and others v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council: EAT 22 Feb 2006

EAT Appeals against Employment Tribunals’ decisions upholding the validity of conciliation contracts effected with the assistance of ACAS officers so as to preclude the Claimants from issuing and enforcing equal pay claims. In each case, ACAS officers discharged their functions under s77 Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and s18 Employment Tribunals Act 1996 which are to … Continue reading Clarke and others v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council: EAT 22 Feb 2006

Hosso v European Credit Management Ltd: EAT 7 Jan 2011

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT SEX DISCRIMINATION – JurisdictionWhether allocation of share options, which differed between Claimant and her male comparator, gave rise to a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 or Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (see SDA s6(6)). On the facts found, the scheme being truly discretionary, the claim fell under the SDA. Since … Continue reading Hosso v European Credit Management Ltd: EAT 7 Jan 2011

Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SCS 14 Jan 2011

The claimant had succeeded in her claim for constructive unfair dismissal, and of sex and race discrimation at the tribunal. The EAT reversed the discrimination findings saying that the claimant had not set them out in her ET1, and the Tribunal had wrongly extended them, giving the respondents no fair notice. She now appealed against … Continue reading Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SCS 14 Jan 2011

Johal v Commission for Equality and Human Rights: EAT 2 Jul 2010

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION – Pregnancy and discriminationWhether detriment complained of by Claimant was unfavourable treatment on the grounds that she was on maternity leave (Sex Discrimination Act 1975, s3A)? Employment Tribunal found on the facts that it was not. That finding was a permissible one on the facts; there was no error in the ET’s … Continue reading Johal v Commission for Equality and Human Rights: EAT 2 Jul 2010

Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Another: EAT 30 Jul 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Working outside the jurisdiction The Claimants were wives of service personnel working at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the Netherlands – Because of that status they were eligible for, and they obtained, employment in schools attached to those headquarters – They were dismissed when their husbands’ service came to an … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Another: EAT 30 Jul 2010

Nazir and Another v Asim and Another: EAT 29 Jun 2010

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION – DirectRACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct1. Unincorporated association – practice and procedure. The Claimant was employed by the management committee of an unincorporated association. By the time of the hearing the only Respondents were (1) the unincorporated association in its own name and (2) two individual members of the management committee alleged to … Continue reading Nazir and Another v Asim and Another: EAT 29 Jun 2010

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

EB v BA: CA 22 Feb 2006

Appeal from rejection of claim for sex discrimination – gender reassignment Judges: Hooper LJ Citations: [2006] EWCA Civ 132, [2006] IRLR 471 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 2A Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment, Discrimination Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.239106

Brown v Rentokil Ltd: IHCS 10 Mar 1995

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

Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission: HL 1989

At the council’s independent, single-sex grammar schools there were more places available for boys than girls. Consequently the council were obliged to set a higher pass mark for girls than boys in the grammar school entrance examination. Held: The council, as local education authority, had discriminated against girls. Discrimination can take place when a woman … Continue reading Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission: HL 1989

Cornelius v University College of Swansea: CA 1987

A college declined to act on an employee’s transfer request or to operate their grievance procedure while proceedings under the 1975 Act, brought by the employee against the college, were still awaiting determination. The college was trying to protect itself. Held: An unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to a detriment in discrimination law. The … Continue reading Cornelius v University College of Swansea: CA 1987

University of Westminster v Bailey: EAT 22 Sep 2009

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Extension of time: just and equitableThe Employment Judge erred when he exercised discretion to allow a Sex Discrimination Act 1975 claim 19 months out of time, the prejudice to the Respondent being considerable, on the grounds amongst others that a senior lecturer in business did not know the Act applied to men, … Continue reading University of Westminster v Bailey: EAT 22 Sep 2009

Grampian Health Board v Hewage: EAT 4 Feb 2009

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proofRACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination Tribunal found Claimant to have suffered both sex and race discrimination in course of her employment as a consultant orthodontist. On appeal, Tribunal found to have failed to carry out a like for like comparison with chosen comparators and to have, wrongly, only considered Appellants’ submissions … Continue reading Grampian Health Board v Hewage: EAT 4 Feb 2009

Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others: CA 23 Mar 2001

The college failed to renew contracts for lecturers on one year fixed term contracts. A greater proportion of women were subject to such contracts, and the dismissal fell entirely on part time and hourly paid workforce. The condition which the complainant relied upon as discriminatory was that in order to qualify for re-engagement she had … Continue reading Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others: CA 23 Mar 2001

Duke v GEC Reliance Systems Limited: HL 2 Jan 1988

The court was asked about the differential in retirement ages between men and women in private sector employment, and whether it constituted sex discrimination. Held: Section 2(4) of the 1972 Act did not allow a British Court to distort the meaning of a British Statute in order to enforce a Community Directive which does not … Continue reading Duke v GEC Reliance Systems Limited: HL 2 Jan 1988

Chambers v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Dec 2007

The applicant was, at the material time, a Lieutenant in the Royal Army. She was dismissed from the armed forces pursuant to the policy of the Ministry of Defence against homosexuals in the armed forces. The applicant submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal arguing that her dismissal, and the treatment to which she was … Continue reading Chambers v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Dec 2007

Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

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

Vidal-Hall v Hawley and others: EAT 21 Feb 2008

EAT Jurisdictional points – Agency relationships Sex discrimination – Contract workers The Claimant was employed by CSV to work at a prison. The prison had an arrangement, but not a contract, with CSV and so the prison could not be liable to the Claimant as a contract worker under Sex Discrimination Act 1975 s9, nor … Continue reading Vidal-Hall v Hawley and others: EAT 21 Feb 2008

Unison GMB v Brennan and others: EAT 19 Mar 2008

EAT Jurisdictional Points Sex discrimination Can an employment tribunal make a declaration that the term of a collective agreement is void, pursuant to section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act, at the behest of a claimant who can bring proceedings under the Equal Pay Act for breach of the equality clause, where if the claim … Continue reading Unison GMB v Brennan and others: EAT 19 Mar 2008

Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 1 Feb 2000

The question is whether, a full Employment Tribunal having been empanelled to hear and determine the appellant, Mrs Unwin’s complaint of victimisation contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Chairman of that Employment Tribunal, Mr Rich, was entitled to strike out the complaint under Rule 13(2)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and … Continue reading Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 1 Feb 2000

Kennedy Scott Ltd v Francis: EAT 3 May 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements Has the Claimant complied with Step 1 of the statutory grievance procedure where he presents his complaint at a meeting with his line manager who notes it down, it is accepted, accurately and contemporaneously? Employment Tribunal decided that he had. Appeal, given the particular facts … Continue reading Kennedy Scott Ltd v Francis: EAT 3 May 2007

Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 12 Mar 2007

The EOC contended amongst other things that section 4A(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did not fulfil its intended purpose, which was to transpose into English law provisions contained in the Equal Treatment Directive 2002/73/EC. Held: The use in section 4A(1)(a) of the expression ‘on ground of her sex’ introduced a requirement of cause … Continue reading Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 12 Mar 2007

Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd (No 2): HL 22 Apr 1982

Under English law and under Community law, the national court should construe a regulation adopted to give effect to a Directive as intended to carry out the obligations of the Directive and as not being inconsistent with it if it is reasonably capable of bearing such a meaning. Lord Diplock said that: ‘it is a … Continue reading Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd (No 2): HL 22 Apr 1982

Madarassy v Nomura International Plc: CA 26 Jan 2007

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

Kettle Produce Ltd v Ward: EAT 8 Nov 2006

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

Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council: EAT 14 Dec 2006

EAT Sex Discrimination – Transsexualism Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal Gender reassignment. Employer’s lack of knowledge. Meaning of ‘treats’ (SDA s2A(1)(a). Constructive dismissal – proper formulation of implied term of mutual trust and confidence; see Woods (EAT); cf. BCCI (per Lord Steyn). Judges: Peter Clarke J Citations: [2006] UKEAT 0240 – 06 – 1412, UKEAT/0240/06, … Continue reading Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council: EAT 14 Dec 2006

Palihakkara v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 9 Oct 2006

EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise1. On the true construction of a compromise agreement in respect of claims arising on the termination of the contract of employment, claims arising during the relationship and arising otherwise than on termination were not compromised. The agreement did not meet the industry standard for such model agreements.2. Further the … Continue reading Palihakkara v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 9 Oct 2006

St Helens Metroploitan Borough Council v Derbyshire and others: CA 29 Jul 2005

The employees commenced a series of sex discrimination claims against the appellant. Many had settled, and the council wrote directly to the remaining claimants. The claimants said this amounted to intimidation because the council had not gone through their legal representatives, and as such was victimisation. Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The tribunal had not … Continue reading St Helens Metroploitan Borough Council v Derbyshire and others: CA 29 Jul 2005

Brocklebank v Silveira: EAT 11 Jan 2006

EAT Sex Discrimination: Pregnancy and DiscriminationSex Discrimination by employment agency contrary to s15(1)(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in not making initial risk assessment in relation to a pregnant prospective employee.Good decision by Employment Tribunal, on liability and quantum. No error of law disclosed in Notice of Appeal or Skeleton by manager of employment … Continue reading Brocklebank v Silveira: EAT 11 Jan 2006

J Shepherd and others v North Yorkshire County Council: EAT 7 Dec 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination – Victimisation – The Claimants’ claim that the Respondent aided, abetted, counselled and procured trade unions to commit breaches of section 12 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is unsustainable, both in the form originally pleaded and in the proposed re-formulation put before the Appeal Tribunal. Accordingly, albeit for reasons different to … Continue reading J Shepherd and others v North Yorkshire County Council: EAT 7 Dec 2005

Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd: EAT 1 Nov 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.The claimant appealed dismissal of her action for equal pay, saying that the ‘material factor’ defence used to justify a different payment had been incorrectly applied. … Continue reading Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd: EAT 1 Nov 2005

The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham: EAT 26 Sep 2001

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

Marshall v Law Centres Federation: EAT 30 Jan 2002

The appellant solicitor had been employed by the respondent. They wrote to dismiss her, after failing to obtain funding. She issued proceedings on the basis that she had been victimised after giving evidence for a co-worker in other proceedings against the Federation. The tribunal, having found the lack of funding proved, considered that to be … Continue reading Marshall v Law Centres Federation: EAT 30 Jan 2002

Swithland Motors Plc v Clarke and others: EAT 14 Jul 1993

There could be no act of discrimination under the Section 6(1)(c) of the 1975 Act in omitting to offer employment until the person allegedly responsible for the omission was in a position to offer such employment. Judges: Hull J QC Citations: [1993] UKEAT 329 – 92 – 1407, [1994] ICR 231 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex … Continue reading Swithland Motors Plc v Clarke and others: EAT 14 Jul 1993

Sirdar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 15 Sep 1995

The claimant had brought a sex discrimination claim, saying that she had bee refused opportunity to work as a chef with the Royal Marines. She and the defendants had had sought an adjournment of the claim, but this had been refused. Held: Appeal allowed. Judges: Hicks QC HHJ Citations: [1995] UKEAT 978 – 95 – … Continue reading Sirdar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 15 Sep 1995

London Underground Ltd v Edwards: EAT 14 Feb 1995

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

Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 30 Jul 1997

Citations: [1997] UKEAT 568 – 97 – 3007 Links: Bailii Cited by: See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 1-Mar-1998 . .See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 15-Dec-1999 EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 1-Feb-2000 The question … Continue reading Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 30 Jul 1997

Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 1 Mar 1998

Judges: Byrt QC HHJ Citations: [1998] UKEAT 351 – 98 – 0103 Links: Bailii Citing: See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 30-Jul-1997 . . Cited by: See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 15-Dec-1999 EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .See Also – Unwin v Sackville School … Continue reading Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 1 Mar 1998

Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 15 Dec 1999

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal Judges: His Honour Judge Peter Clark Citations: [1999] UKEAT 1068 – 98 – 1512, EAT/1068/98, EAT/1314/98 Links: Bailii, EAT Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 30-Jul-1997 . . See Also – Unwin v Sackville School and Another EAT 1-Mar-1998 . … Continue reading Unwin v Sackville School and Another: EAT 15 Dec 1999

Visa International Service Association v Paul: EAT 20 May 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. Judges: Peter Clark HHJ Citations: EAT/97/2 EAT/98/02/EAT/327/02, [2003] EAT 0097 – 02 – 2005, [2003] UKEAT 0097 – 02 – 2005, [2004] IRLR 42 Links: Bailii, Bailii, EAT Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment, Discrimination Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.189462

MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School: HL 19 Jun 2003

Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation. Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the sexual orientation of the first claimant. Discrimination for sexual orientation does not come … Continue reading MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School: HL 19 Jun 2003

Kent Constabulary v Baskerville: CA 3 Sep 2003

Whether a Chief Constable can be made liable under the 1975 Act for sexual harassment and other acts of discrimination committed by one of his officers against another of his officers. Citations: [2003] EWCA Civ 1354, [2003] ICR 1463, [2003] Po LR 437 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Police, … Continue reading Kent Constabulary v Baskerville: CA 3 Sep 2003

Saggar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 25 May 2004

Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that jurisdiction was not created by minimal presence here. Held: The provisions as to jurisdiction … Continue reading Saggar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 25 May 2004

Medley v Working Men’s Club and Institute Union Ltd: EAT 10 Mar 2004

EAT Sex Discrimination – Lady members of local club not allowed to be associates of CIU (umbrella organisation). S. 12 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 not applicable as CIU not relevant organisation and ‘associates’ are not members. Judges: he Honourable Mr Justice Burton Citations: [2004] UKEAT 0782 – 03 – 1003, UKEAT/782/03/ILB Links: Bailii Employment, … Continue reading Medley v Working Men’s Club and Institute Union Ltd: EAT 10 Mar 2004

Vince-Cain v Orthet Ltd: EAT 5 Mar 2004

Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal – Refusal of an application by an employer to argue that it is wrong in law under SDA 1975 section 65 to gross up an award for compensation when its own submission to the opposite effect had been accepted by the Employment Tribunal. Judges: McMullen QC HHJ Citations: [2004] … Continue reading Vince-Cain v Orthet Ltd: EAT 5 Mar 2004

Meade v Pugh and Another: QBD 5 Mar 2004

The claimant was a social work student. He attended a work experience placement, and challenged the report given by the defendants on that placement, saying it was discriminatory and defamatory. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The occasion was one of qualified privilege. The claimant had to establish malice to defeat that … Continue reading Meade v Pugh and Another: QBD 5 Mar 2004

Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge: EAT 4 Mar 2003

EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation. Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. ‘There must be many cases in which the disabled person has been placed at a substantial disadvantage in the workplace, but in … Continue reading Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge: EAT 4 Mar 2003

Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed: EAT 27 Jun 1997

News Group Newspapers Ltd had been joined as a party, in order that it could argue the obvious public interest relating to the importance, which has long been accepted in the courts, of the interest, not just of the press but of the public generally, in freedom of reporting and openness in court hearings. Discrimination … Continue reading Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed: EAT 27 Jun 1997

Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment tribunal decision. It did not look to see whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred … Continue reading Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v J N Burton: EAT 27 Sep 2000

Race Discrimination – Direct. After dealing with the arguments based on the history of the various statutes: ‘Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts as to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of … Continue reading Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v J N Burton: EAT 27 Sep 2000

Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Chew: EAT 27 Sep 2001

The Constabulary appealed against a decision that they were guilty of indirect sex discrimination, as regards the way they had implemented part time working and shift duties. The parties differed as the pool of employees from which the comparison was to be taken. There were unresolved issues of fact, and if these would affect the … Continue reading Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Chew: EAT 27 Sep 2001

The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A, Secretary of State for Education: EAT 2 Oct 2001

The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be unable to conduct searches, which were required in law to be by officers of the same … Continue reading The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A, Secretary of State for Education: EAT 2 Oct 2001

Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor’s Department: CA 22 Nov 2001

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

Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2): HL 17 Feb 2000

Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from any discriminatory reason. It was not a breach of the Directive. Lord Nicholls said: ‘The … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2): HL 17 Feb 2000

Strathclyde Regional Council and others v Wallace and others (Scotland): HL 22 Jan 1998

80% of the men who had been employed since 1 April 1997 had got protection under TUPE whereas only 66.66% of the women had. It was argued that this difference in percentages was sufficient to justify a claim of indirect discrimination. Held: There was no sex discrimination where there were genuine reasons for a pay … Continue reading Strathclyde Regional Council and others v Wallace and others (Scotland): HL 22 Jan 1998

Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls’ School and Oxfordshire County Council: CA 21 Mar 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

C Maloney v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; C Whatford; Governing Body of Hammersmith School and D A Williams: CA 7 May 1999

The claimant sought damages from the respondents. The case was listed to be heard over 25 days, but she sought an adjournment because of her own ill health. She appealed a refusal of the adjournment. The adjournment was refused on several grounds, including the great age of the action, and the need for a speedy … Continue reading C Maloney v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; C Whatford; Governing Body of Hammersmith School and D A Williams: CA 7 May 1999

London Underground Limited v Edwards: CA 21 May 1998

A new driver roster imposing shift working timetables discriminated against women since significantly less in proportion of women could meet the new arrangements – indirect discrimination Citations: Times 01-Jun-1998, Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 876, (1998) IRLR 364 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – London Underground … Continue reading London Underground Limited v Edwards: CA 21 May 1998

Rovenska v General Medical Council: CA 4 Dec 1996

A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical practitioner in this country for doctors with overseas qualifications, to exempt her from its requirement … Continue reading Rovenska v General Medical Council: CA 4 Dec 1996

Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines: CA 17 Mar 1999

The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in London, from which all her tours of duty as a flight … Continue reading Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines: CA 17 Mar 1999

Wardman v Carpenter Farrer Partnership: EAT 14 May 1993

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

Smith v Safeway Plc: EAT 9 Dec 1994

A male employee had been unlawfully discriminated against when he had been dismissed for having long hair, where the same requirements would not have been made of female employees. Citations: Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1994] UKEAT 185 – 93 – 0912 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Discrimination, Employment … Continue reading Smith v Safeway Plc: EAT 9 Dec 1994

Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2): ECJ 2 Aug 1993

The UK law limiting awards of damages in sex discrimination cases is unlawful, and fails to implement European directive fully. Financial compensation must be at a level adequate to achieve equality between the workers identified. Citations: Independent 04-Aug-1993, Times 04-Aug-1993, C-271/91, [1993] ECR 1-4367, [1993] EUECJ C-271/91, [1994] QB 126 Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination … Continue reading Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2): ECJ 2 Aug 1993

Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc: CA 3 May 2001

A sex discrimination claim involving a claim by an employee for damages for sexual harassment, had to be made during the period of employment. An employer’s failure to deal properly with an allegation of sexual harassment could itself be a detriment under the Act and Directive. The fact that the statutes against sex discrimination and … Continue reading Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc: CA 3 May 2001

O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School: EAT 7 Jun 1996

The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. Judges: Mummery P Citations: Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 07-Jun-1996, [1996] IRLR 372, [1996] … Continue reading O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School: EAT 7 Jun 1996

Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd: HL 19 Dec 2000

A woman who had taken maternity leave was deemed to have returned to work following the completion of that leave when, on the appropriate date she provided medical certificates in accordance with the contract of employment. The applicant had given notice of her intention to return after maternity leave, but obtained an extension of four … Continue reading Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd: HL 19 Dec 2000

British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others: EAT 23 Feb 1993

An application of equal pay involved consideration of 150 comparators, and at great cost to all involved. The industrial members of the tribunal, with the support of the legal member, criticised the delay and complexity of Employment law. The growing complexity of industrial law was operating against the interests of those seeking to work within … Continue reading British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others: EAT 23 Feb 1993

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Scanlon: EAT 22 May 2007

Unfair dismissal – Automatically unfair reasons/ Reasonableness of dismissal Appeal on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had not applied the correct statutory tests of causation under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and s.4(1) Sex Discrimination Act 1975 upheld. The Employment Tribunal erred in finding only a causation link and failed to apply the statutory … Continue reading Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Scanlon: EAT 22 May 2007

Barry v Midland Bank Plc: EAT 25 Oct 1996

It was not sex discrimination to calculate severance pay for an employee on her current part time earnings. Citations: Times 25-Oct-1996 Statutes: Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(2) Citing: See Also – Barry v Midland Bank Plc EAT 2-Feb-1996 Appeal from rejection of sex discrimination claim . . Cited by: Appeal from – Barry v Midland … Continue reading Barry v Midland Bank Plc: EAT 25 Oct 1996

Porcelli v Strathclyde Regional Council: EAT 1985

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