The EAT considered the denial of access to a female employee of a preferential mortgage subsidy scheme which favoured male employees.
Held: So long as the applicant remained in the employment of these employers there was a continuing discrimination against her. Browne-Wilkinson J said: ‘By constituting a scheme under the rules of which a female could not obtain the benefit of the mortgage subsidy in our judgment the employers were discriminating against the applicant in the way they afforded her access to the scheme. It follows, in our judgment, that so long as the applicant remained in the employment of these employers there was a continuing discrimination against her. Alternatively it could be said that so long as her employment continued, the employers were subjecting her to ‘any other detriment’ within section 6(2)(b). Once this conclusion is reached, in our judgment it follows that the case does fall within section 76(6)(b). The rule of the scheme constituted a discriminatory act extending over the period of her employment and is therefore to be treated as having been done at the end of her employment.’
Judges:
Browne-Wilkinson J
Citations:
[1989] ICR 157
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cast v Croydon College CA 19-Mar-1998
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.282645
