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
The claimant was given a senior post in the force, but within the same division in which her policeman husband held a more senior post. The appointment was rescinded, and she claimed sex discrimination. She was found to have been indirectly discriminated against because of the marital relationship. The Force had suggested that the particular … Continue reading The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham: EAT 26 Sep 2001
The Tribunal considered the difficulties arising where one party was not represented, but where the case gave rise to difficult questions of law. In this case the claimant alleged sex discrimination in the context of rostering arrangements making demands on her as a sole parent. The defendant appealed against a finding that it was in … Continue reading London Underground Ltd v Edwards: EAT 14 Feb 1995
The Lord Chancellor’s action in appointing to a special adviser’s post someone he already knew and trusted, without first advertising the post openly, was not an act of sex or race discrimination. Had they applied, they would not have been appointed because they were not personally known to the Lord Chancellor. In practice a post … Continue reading Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor’s Department: CA 22 Nov 2001
The local authority’s redundancy policy required the school first to choose for redundancy those on fixed term temporary contracts. The applicant’s contract had not been renewed, and she had been replaced by a teacher with lesser qualifications. The policy adversely affect more women than men and was indirect discrimination, and it was for the school … Continue reading Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls’ School and Oxfordshire County Council: CA 21 Mar 2001
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
Three school dinner ladies had been employed by the Council at National Rates of pay and conditions. Their work which was almost exclusively carried out by females had been rated as of equal value to that of men employed by the council at various establishments. Following compulsory tendering the council declared some of the catering … Continue reading Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council: HL 7 Jul 1995
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
