The claimant had been a cook. A poster was put up at work redrawn to show her in a sexually suggestive pose. The court now considered an appeal agreed by consent by the parties.
Held: Since the case had been heard, the Court of Appeal in Tower Boot had amended the law, and the appeal was appropriate. The case was to be remitted.
Judges:
Peter Clark J
Citations:
[1997] UKEAT 1272 – 96 – 1311
Links:
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 41(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Irving and Irving v Post Office CA 1987
The defendant’s employee disliked his neighbours – the plaintiffs. Whilst working in the sorting office, he wrote racially abusive materials on letters addressed to them. The plaintiffs appealed a finding that the defendant was not liable because . .
Cited – J Sainsbury Plc v Moger 25-Feb-1994
The EAT should not accept an order by consent unless it is satisfied that there are good grounds for making the order. . .
Cited – Tower Boot Company Ltd v Jones EAT 27-Mar-1995
The company appealed against a finding of race discrimination.
Held: As a matter of law the concept of vicarious liability provided for in Section 41(1) of the Act, identical to that under Section 32(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. . .
Cited – Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones CA 11-Dec-1996
An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.207884
