Click the case name for better results:

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

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

O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School and Another: EAT 24 May 1996

The claimant had been dismissed as a teacher by the respondent Roman Catholic school after she became pregnant by a priest. She had been found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal had rejected her claim of discrimination for pregnancy. Judges: Mummery J P Citations: [1996] IRLR 372, [1997] ICR 33, [1996] UKEAT 1180 … Continue reading O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School and Another: EAT 24 May 1996

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

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

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

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

Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd: EAT 27 Jan 2006

EAT The claimant had worked as an adviser for the respondent identifying investment opportunities. He said he had been unfairly dismissed after disclosing that the company had overpaid for an investment. He now appealed against a finding that any disclosures were not made in good faith and were not qualifying disclosures. Though his dismissal had … Continue reading Bachnak v Emerging Markets Partnership (Europe) Ltd: EAT 27 Jan 2006

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

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

P v S and Cornwall County Council: ECJ 30 Apr 1996

An employee at an educational establishment told management that he intended to undergo gender reassignment. He was given notice of dismissal. Held: The scope of the Directive was not confined to discrimination based on the fact that a person was of one or other sex but also extended to discrimination arising from the gender reassignment … Continue reading P v S and Cornwall County Council: ECJ 30 Apr 1996

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue is whether an employer may be vicariously liable under section 3 … Continue reading Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

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

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

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

Haughton v Olau Line (UK) Ltd: CA 1986

The applicant was a cashier on a ship. She made a complaint of sex harassment and discrimination. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction because she worked abroad. Held: Her work was done mainly outside Great Britain. Neill LJ said: ‘Thus s10(1) provides in effect that for the purposes of Part II all employment … Continue reading Haughton v Olau Line (UK) Ltd: CA 1986

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M: HL 8 Mar 2006

The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than someone in a heterosexual relationship. Held: The claim failed. The regulations had now … Continue reading Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M: HL 8 Mar 2006

XC Trains Ltd v CD and Others: 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

British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others: EAT 26 Mar 1997

The employer appealed against a decision by the tribunal that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints of sex discrimination. The tribunal had extended the time for the claim on the just and equitable basis. Held: The EAT set out five criteria for answering whether to extend time: ‘(a) the length of and reasons for … Continue reading British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others: EAT 26 Mar 1997

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

E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another: SC 16 Dec 2009

E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history. Held: The school’s appeal failed. English law may be at fault because it made no allowance for any justification of direct … Continue reading E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another: SC 16 Dec 2009

Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 16 Mar 2011

The claimant challenged as incompatible with EU law, the Regulations which restricted the entitlement to state pension credit to those entitled to reside in the UK. Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The conditions imposed by the Regulations were indirectly discriminatory. There was not an exact correspondence between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups and the protected … Continue reading Patmalniece v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 16 Mar 2011

Deer v University of Oxford: CA 6 Feb 2015

The claimant had previously succeeded in a claim of sex discrimination against the University, her former employer. She now appealed against rejection of her claims alleging later victimisation. Held: Two appeals succeed, and those matters remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration: ‘I do not see why not: if the appellant were able to establish that … Continue reading Deer v University of Oxford: CA 6 Feb 2015

Eversheds Legal Services Ltd v De Belin: EAT 6 Apr 2011

eversheds_dbEAT11 EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION – DirectSEX DISCRIMINATION – Pregnancy and discriminationSEX DISCRIMINATION – Other lossesUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissalUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deductionMale claimant and female comparator absent on maternity leave in redundancy selection pool – On one criterion (‘lock up’) Claimant given low (actual) score but comparator given (notional) maximum score since because … Continue reading Eversheds Legal Services Ltd v De Belin: EAT 6 Apr 2011

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same: HL 26 May 2005

One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s allowance payable to those under 25. Held: (Lord Carswell dissented in part.) The claims failed. The … Continue reading Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same: HL 26 May 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zaiwalla and Co (a Firm) v Walia: EAT 24 Jul 2002

The claimant sought aggravated damages for the aggressive way the respondent firm had defended her action for sex discrimination. Held: In exceptional circumstances, and this was one, the tribunal could award additional damages where a respondent behaved in his defence in an over-enthusiastic way: ‘If a respondent misconducts himself in the defence of a discrimination … Continue reading Zaiwalla and Co (a Firm) v Walia: EAT 24 Jul 2002

The Solicitors Regulation Authority v Mitchell: EAT 17 Feb 2014

EAT Sex Discrimination : Direct – The Claimant and a male comparator were permitted to work from home on certain days each week to facilitate child care arrangements. The Claimant’s right to do so was revoked, although she was offered the facility of more flexible working hours. The explanation for the Claimant’s apparently less favourable … Continue reading The Solicitors Regulation Authority v Mitchell: EAT 17 Feb 2014

Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd: EAT 4 May 1994

A display of nude images at a workplace may be discriminatory as sexual harassment, but some common sense was needed. The display of soft-porn photographs in a workplace need not of itself be subjecting a female worker to a detriment.Mummery J P considered an appeal on the grounds of perversity: ‘Whenever an appeal is based … Continue reading Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd: EAT 4 May 1994

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

Kelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Loughran v Northern Ireland Housing Executive: HL 29 Jul 1998

Provisions against discrimination on religious grounds in Northern Ireland, could apply to appointment of a firm to a panel of experts, where one person was designated to carry out that work. ‘it is essential, for there to be ’employment,’ that the person making the contract shall himself undertake to do, at any rate, some of … Continue reading Kelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Loughran v Northern Ireland Housing Executive: HL 29 Jul 1998

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

Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 1 May 2007

In 2000, the defendant introduced a policy to make compensation payments for those British services personnel who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan had served in the Indian Army, was captured and became a prisoner of war of the Japanese. He accepted that he … Continue reading Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence: CA 1 May 2007

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

Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005

EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. Judges: His Honour Peter Clark Citations: [2005] UKEAT 0318 – 05 – 2907, UKEAT/0319/05/TM, UKEAT/0318/05/TM, [2005] ICR 1647, UKEAT/0320/05/TM, [2005] IRLR 836 Links: Bailii, EATn Statutes: Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 20(1) … Continue reading Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005

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

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

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

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

Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College: EAT 29 Mar 2000

EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect – European Material – Article 19. EAT European Material – Article 19 EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic). Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Citations: EAT/1080/98, EAT/1300/97, [2000] UKEAT 1300 – 97 – 2903 Links: EAT, EAT, Bailii Statutes: Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 76/207/EEC Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College: EAT 29 Mar 2000

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

Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd: CA 15 Apr 2003

The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex discrimination lies initially on the employee. The burden of proof in indirect discrimination cases should be … Continue reading Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd: CA 15 Apr 2003

Cass v Amt-Sybex (NI) Ltd: NIIT 30 Sep 2009

NIIT The tribunal finds that the claimant did not suffer discrimination on the grounds of sex or her part-time working status and accordingly her claims are dismissed. Judges: Mr B Greene Citations: [2009] NIIT 7 – 08IT Links: Bailii Statutes: Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, Part-time Workers (Provision of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 … Continue reading Cass v Amt-Sybex (NI) Ltd: NIIT 30 Sep 2009

Mingeley v Pennock and Another (T/A Amber Cars): CA 9 Feb 2004

The claimant taxi driver sought to assert race discrimination. The respondent argued that he had not been an employee, but an independent contractor. The Claimant owned his own vehicle and paid the respondents minicab operators pounds 75 per week for a radio and access to their company system, which allocated calls from customers to a … Continue reading Mingeley v Pennock and Another (T/A Amber Cars): CA 9 Feb 2004

Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 May 2017

The appellant female prisoner asserted that the much smaller number of probation and bail hostels provided for women prisoners when released on licence was discriminatory in leaving greater numbers of women far removed from their families. Held: A declaration was granted: ‘The provision of Approved Premises in England and Wales by the Secretary of State … Continue reading Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 May 2017

Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency): SC 5 Apr 2017

The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but with no explanation of the connection. Naaem was an imam. He began as a part time prison chaplain, … Continue reading Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency): SC 5 Apr 2017

Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd: HL 3 May 2001

A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers. Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal responsibility imposed on an employer, although he is himself free from blame, for a tort committed by his … Continue reading Lister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd: HL 3 May 2001

McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd: EAT 30 Nov 2009

EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATIONUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissalChristian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.Held: Tribunal right to dismiss claims of discrimination (direct and indirect) contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and of unfair dismissal – London Borough of Islington v … Continue reading McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd: EAT 30 Nov 2009

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

Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018

The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary. Held: The company’s appeal failed. Mr Smith was a worker: ‘there were features of the contract which … Continue reading Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018

Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014

Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found that a member of such a firm was … Continue reading Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014

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

Securicor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union): EAT 7 Apr 2003

EAT The company decided to close two branches and make redundancies. They presented the closure itself as a fait accompli to the union representatives. The Tribunal found that this involved a failure to consult about ways of avoiding redundancies because the decision to close had been determined prior to any meeting with the union. Held: … Continue reading Securicor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union): EAT 7 Apr 2003

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

Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004

Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately explained. The court could look to parliamentary reports to identify the mischief sought to be rectified, … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004

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

Applin v Race Relations Board: HL 27 Mar 1974

A couple cared for children without fee who were referred to them by a local authority. The children they cared for included coloured children. Two individuals sought to prevent the couple caring for coloured children. The question for the House of Lords was whether the attempt by the individuals to prevent the couple so doing … Continue reading Applin v Race Relations Board: HL 27 Mar 1974

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

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