EAT Sex Discrimination
Burden of proof, primary findings. Did burden shift? Was burden discharged? Whether to remit to same or different Tribunal.

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0151 – 04 – 2109

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.216072

The court considered the non-admission of part time workers to pension scheme benefits after a transfer of employment.
Held: (Pill LJ) While the effect of TUPE was that the continuing contract of employment was deemed always to have been with the transferee, the pension rights had been removed from it and it could not be treated as if they had not. This reasoning fits with the wording of section 2(4) of the 1970 Act: ‘The employment under a contract of employment about which complaint is made is the contract between the transferor and employee, with its equality clause providing pension rights, and the post-transfer contract of employment, shorn as it is by statute of existing pension rights, is not the specific contract of employment for the purposes of section 2(4). The claim is based on the previous contract and, in so far as its terms have not been transferred, it terminated upon the transfer and time began to run. The existence, in each of the contracts, of an equality clause does not mean that they can be treated as the same contract.’

Judges:

Pill, Jonathan Parker LJJ and Laddie J

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1281, [2004] OPLR 363, [2005] ICR 222, [2004] IRLR 979, [2004] Pens LR 377

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others EAT 2004
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3) HL 8-Mar-2006
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time.
Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215927

Application for permission to appeal

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1551

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.450042

Citations:

[2003] NIFET 3085 – 01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.237381

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1220, [2006] ICR 524, [2006] IRLR 41

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – High Quality Lifestyles Ltd v Watts EAT 10-Apr-2006
EAT The Employment Tribunal had erred in its construction of direct discrimination under s3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended when it failed to construct a correct hypothetical comparator . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.231515

School catering assistants claimed equal pay under the Act. Their work had been valued as equal to that of men, but following a contracting out procedure, they earned less than men.
Held: The Council had failed to show that the difference was due to a material factor other than the difference in sex.

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 501 – 92 – 2101

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Coal Corporation and Others, North Yorkshire County Council v Ratcliffe and Others CA 11-May-1994
School catering assistants did work which had been valued equally with that of men, but their jobs had been contracted out to direct service companies who paid them less.
Held: Market pressure which required the payment of lower wages to women . .
At EAT – Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council HL 7-Jul-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210417

The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Secondly, that the Tribunal failed to interpret the law relating to indirect discrimination correctly.

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 249 – 92 – 1404

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
Cited – Perera v Civil Service Commission (No 2) EAT 1982
The tribunal considered the method of selection of the pool on a claim for indirect discrimination. In this case the claimant alleged that an age test applied on his application would effectively limit the proportion of coloured who would meet the . .
Cited – Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority CA 1985
General damages cannot be awarded for frustration, mental distress or injured feelings arising from an employer’s breach of the implied term of confidence and trust. Dillon LJ said that damages for mental distress in contract are limited to certain . .
Cited – Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd CA 1985
The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottingham City Council EAT 14-Apr-1994
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal . .
Cited – Meer v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 26-May-1988
The Court discussed the nature of ‘a requirement or condition’ for the purposes of the 1976 Act.
Held: Dillon LJ said: ‘The case of Perera decided that there can only be a requirement or condition within s.1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act . .

Cited by:

See Also – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to . .
See Also – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottingham City Council EAT 14-Apr-1994
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209846

Appeal agaiinst extension of time given for filing sex discrimination case.

Judges:

Mummery J P

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 1225 – 95 – 2012

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7691)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209601

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 1056 – 95 – 0412

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Boyo v London Borough of Lambeth CA 8-Mar-1994
An employee dismissed by his employer’s act of repudiation of the contract, is entitled to receive money in lieu of notice as well as compensation for a reasonable period for carrying out the appropriate disciplinary procedure.
Ralph Gibson LJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209566

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case Management
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
The Employment Tribunal did not err in law either (1) in the way in which it dealt with an existing list of issues or (2) in the way in which it addressed a reasonable adjustments claim.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0188 – 18 – 2401

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.635816

Simon Brown LJ said: ‘As will readily be seen, it provides (perhaps rather surprisingly) that someone is to be treated as disabled even though they are not in fact disabled (even, that is, where they suffer no substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities) if, without the medical treatment they are in fact receiving, they would suffer that disability. One asks the question whether, if treatment were stopped at the relevant date, would the person then, notwithstanding such benefit as had been obtained from prior treatment, have an impairment which would have the relevant adverse effect?’ and in a ‘deduced effect’ case ‘clear medical evidence would be expected, not just the Applicant’s own testimony’.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

[2003] IRLR 111

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 3(2)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark EAT 4-Feb-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.416810

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 364 – 00 – 1705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.265165

Appeal from terms of discovery order.

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 1205 – 94 – 1603

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – London Borough of Hackney v Tiyamiyu CA 23-Apr-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209032

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.

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 56 – 94 – 2703, [1995] IRLR 529

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – AB v CD EAT 13-Nov-1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209033

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 breach of section 1 of the 1975 Act.

Judges:

Mummery P J

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 241 – 94 – 1402

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b)

Citing:

Cited – Orphanos v Queen Mary College HL 1985
The complainant, a Cypriot, argued that the respondent college’s practice, determined by government policy, of charging higher fees to ‘overseas’ students than to ‘home’ students indirectly discriminated against him on the ground of his race. . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

At EAT – London Underground Limited v Edwards (2) CA 21-May-1998
New rosters for underground train drivers were indirectly discriminatory because all the men could comply with them but not all the women could do so: it was a ‘striking fact’ that not a single man was disadvantaged despite the overwhelming . .
At EAT – 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 . .
See Also – London Underground Ltd v Edwards EAT 13-Jan-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.208942

Citations:

[1996] UKEAT 124 – 94 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Mensah v Royal College of Midwives EAT 17-Nov-1995
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina v Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council ex parte Mensah Admn 27-Apr-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.208813

Leave to appeal granted.

Citations:

[1996] UKEAT 1259 – 95 – 1305

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust CA 10-Jun-1998
An industrial tribunal should be helpful to litigants to help establish clearly whether issues which had been raised on the papers were not being pursued. An employee claiming racial discrimination but not pursuing it at the tribunal was not allowed . .
Leave – Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust CA 25-Apr-1997
The Trust appealed against a finding of race discrimination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.208399

Appeal against rejection of sex harassment and discrimination claim. She said that the tribunal had given no clear inication that her allegations were either accepted or rejected.
Held: The decision adequately clarified that the tribunal had rejected the claimant’s evidence, and this concclusion was capable of being drawn from the evidence and circumstances. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Butterfield J

Citations:

[1996] UKEAT 34 – 95 – 1405

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Levy v Marrable EAT 1984
The employee was dismissed for having worked on his own car in a dangerous manner. He admitted this, but said he had done so before to the employer’s knowledge without complaint. The employer denied this. The tribunal had dismissed the complaint. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.208355

Appeal from the reserved decision of an Industrial Tribunal finding that the Appellant had not been unfairly dismissed, had not been unfairly selected for redundancy and that the Respondents had not discriminated against him on the ground of his race.

Judges:

Smith J

Citations:

[1996] UKEAT 1256 – 94 – 1501

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.208114

The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his complaint of race discrimination saying that the tribunal had erred in not issuing a witness summons. The tribunal had said that the potential evidence was not relevant.
Held: There had been an error of law in the tribunal’s approach and the matter was remitted. Employment Tribunals have a wide discretion in making case management orders.

Judges:

Hull QC J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 55 – 96 – 1706

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Dada v Metal Box Co Ltd NIRC 1974
Sir John Donaldson sets out the considerations when a witness order is sought in an employment dispute before the court. He said: ‘We are quite clear that tribunals have a discretion in deciding whether or not to issue witness orders. There is no . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Merseyside Tec Limited v Noorani CA 21-Nov-1997
Application for leave to appeal. The respondent had said that the EAT had erred in overturning the tribunal chair’s decision not to issue witness summonses.
Held: Leave was granted. . .
See Also – Noorani v Merseyside TEC Limited CA 19-Oct-1998
The claimant had claimed race discrimination. The tribunal declined to order the issue of witness summonses. The EAT overturned that decision on the basis that the tribunal had not recognised that it had a discretion to issue the summonses, and had . .
See Also – Noorani v Merseyside TEC Limited EAT 21-Apr-1999
A tribunal’s discretion not to grant witness summonses because the witnesses appeared to be only of limited relevance was not to be interfered with, save where it was unreasonable. A tribunal can always act to remedy the refusal later if this . .
Cited – Punjab National Bank (International) Ltd and Others v Gosain EAT 7-Jan-2014
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues – Whether court recordings of relevant meetings prior to Claimant’s alleged dismissal were to be admissible in evidence at trial insofar as they involved private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207559

EAT

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 1229 – 96 – 1906

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207525

The court considered the test for reasonableness in a procedure for selection for redundancy. Peter Clarke J said: ‘As to whether a reasonable employer would or would not consult with an individual employee is, it seems to us, essentially a question of fact for the industrial jury, properly directing itself.’ and ‘It is in these circumstances that consultation between the employer and individuals identified for redundancy becomes important. It should normally take place before a final decision to dismiss is reached. It gives the employee an opportunity to put his case to the manager carrying out the selection, so that the latter may reach a fully informed decision.’ He summarised the authorities: ‘Where no consultation about redundancy has taken place with either the trade union or the employee the dismissal will normally be unfair, unless the industrial tribunal finds that a reasonable employer would have concluded that consultation would be an utterly futile exercise in the particular circumstances of the case . . It will be a question of fact and degree for the industrial tribunal to consider whether consultation with the individual and/or his union was so inadequate as to render the dismissal unfair. A lack of consultation in any particular respect will not automatically lead to that result. The overall picture must be viewed by the tribunal up to the date of termination to ascertain whether the employer has or has not acted reasonably in dismissing the employee on the grounds of redundancy.’

Judges:

Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 760 – 96 – 2301, [1997] IRLR 208, [1997] ICR 399

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Green v A and I Fraser (Wholesale Fish Merchants) Ltd EAT 1985
EAT One of four drivers was to be made redundant. The claimant had the shortest service and was selected on this basis. He said that another employee, with occasional driving duties and shorter service should . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .
Cited – Rothwell v Pelikan Hardcopy Scotland Ltd EAT 23-Sep-2005
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural fairness
The claimant, who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and . .
Cited – P Byrne v Arvin Meritor LVS (UK) Ltd EAT 22-Jan-2003
EAT The appellant had taken a temporary promotion with re-assurances that on completion he would return to his former position. That old role disappeared during the period. The temporary role finished early and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207134

The respondents appealed against a finding of unlawful sex discrimination. The claimant had been seeking psychotherapy, and the defendant sought discovery of her therapy history.
Held: The notes may have been relevant, and an order should have been made for their disclosure.

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 220 – 97 – 1802

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993

Citing:

Cited – British Railways Board v Natarajan EAT 1979
Arnold J considered when it was appropriate for the company’s confidential material to be disclosed to employee claimants in tribunal proceedings: ‘We think that before deciding whether an examination is necessary, the judge or chairman of the . .
Applied – Medallion Holidays Ltd v Birch 1985
The Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal had struck out the employers’ Notice of Appearance for failure to comply with an order for particulars. Hld: The employers’ appeal to the EAT was dismissed. The court considered a strike out of an application . .
Cited – Science Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias HL 1-Nov-1979
Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207172

The respondent challenged the appeal saying that no reasonably arguable point of law arose. The applicant said that a complaint had been made to the police, but that his employer had made no enquiries of them, and that had they done so they would have responded differently on her complaint. The employer had acted on being told of the complaint but not when he had been acquitted. The claimant had not brought this evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal had not either pursued the matter.
Held: The appeal failed. The tribunal would assist a litigant in person, but the claimant’s failure to present a piece of evidence could not amount to an error of law by the tribunal.

Judges:

Altman J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1040 – 98 – 0712

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206968

The court was asked whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable point of law. The claimant had requested witness orders, but the tribunal had refused them. Five of the six requested attended as defentant’s witnesses.
Held: The Industrial Tribunal was perfectly entitled in the exercise of its discretion to refuse to make witness orders in the absence of some compelling or good reason. The request had been made too near the hearing date. As to the question of bias, the Employment Tribunal had been correct to rely on R v Gough.

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 385 – 98 – 0209

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Gough (Robert) HL 1993
The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206660

The claimants appealed against dismissal of their allegations of sexual harassment. The tribunal had found against them on the facts.

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1169 – 97 – 1405

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206430

Citations:

[2016] NIFET 00008 – 16FET

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.657104

Citations:

[2016] NIIT 00020 – 15FET

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.657108

Disability : Harassment
The Claimant has dyspraxia. This causes the Claimant to have difficulties with handwriting. The Claimant also suffers from pain when handwriting and can only write for a few minutes at a time. He qualified as a ‘Teach First’ teacher and was appointed to teach at the Respondent’s School. However, at a meeting on 7 September 2016, the Headteacher, Mr Rowland expressed surprise at his difficulty with writing and made remarks which the Claimant perceived to amount to harassment related to disability. On 8 September 2016, the Claimant was told that he would be suspended and required to stay at home until the issues raised were considered further. The Claimant raised a grievance and subsequently resigned claiming that he had been the victim of direct disability discrimination and harassment. The Tribunal dismissed his claims finding that it was not reasonable in the circumstances for Mr Rowland’s conduct to be regarded as constituting harassment.
The Claimant appealed on the ground that the Tribunal had taken the wrong approach to harassment in that it had treated the question of whether it was reasonable for the impugned conduct to have the proscribed effect as determinative, whereas s.26(4), EqA merely required each of the factors (i.e. perception, circumstances and reasonableness) to be taken into account. The Claimant also contended that the Tribunal had erred in relation to his claim of direct disability discrimination in failing to give effect to its own finding that the reason for the Claimant’s suspension was his disability, namely his difficulty in handwriting.
Held: Appeal dismissed. As to the first ground, the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to harassment. It had applied the approach set out in Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291 which was that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an adverse environment for him, then it should not be found to have done so. As to the second ground, the Tribunal had not misapplied its own findings. Its conclusion was that he had been suspended because of his difficulties with handwriting. That was a finding that treatment was because of the adverse effect of an impairment or of something arising from disability; it was not a finding that the treatment was because of the disability – whether dyspraxia or some other unspecified physical or mental impairment – itself.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0096 – 18 – 2102

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635818

Judges:

Bean, Flaux, Peter Jackson LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2427, [2018] WLR(D) 673

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.628691

EAT The appellant who was disabled was dismissed after a long absence from work. He made various claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, all of which were rejected. He contended that the failure to make an assessment of a disabled employee was a failure to make a reasonable adjustment and that Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd [2006] IRLR 664 was wrongly decided, alternatively ought to be distinguished on the facts. The EAT followed Tarbuck and held that it could not be distinguished.
The employers cross appealed on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law in the way that it determined whether or not the employee was disabled. The EAT held that the Tribunal’s approach did betray an error but that their findings of fact led to the inevitable conclusion that the employee was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act at the material time, which in the context of the appeal was the date of dismissal.
The court considered the effect of an improvement of a claimant’s condition when considering a disability discrimination claim. Elias J said: ‘We recognise that in practice it may be difficult for a tribunal to disregard evidence which shows how the medical position did in fact progress. But it is important that they should do so. Logically, subsequent events cannot be material. If an employer dismisses someone who has a disability likely to last 12 months it cannot alter the position if the employee shortly thereafter makes an unexpected recovery before the 12 months has elapsed; similarly, an employee who was not disabled when the alleged unlawful conduct occurred cannot retrospectively be found to have been disabled at that time because he takes an unexpected turn for the worse. If, contrary to our view, subsequent evidence has any materiality at all, it can only be to confirm or reinforce a conclusion about disability which the tribunal has already reached by relying on the evidence which would have been available at the relevant date.’ and ‘The issue . . is whether the necessary reasonable adjustment has been made; whether it is by luck or judgment is immaterial.’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Elias (President)

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0617 – 06 – 2704, UKEAT/0617/06

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that . .
Cited – Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 10-Feb-2009
The appellant was employed as a teacher. He became disabled on losing part of his arm. He had been located at a prison and was unable to manage the heavy doors. He complained that the respondent had not made reasonable adjustments by transferring . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.251592

The claimant appealed from rejection of her claim that she was indirectly discriminated against by her Respondent employer, by the imposition of a requirement or condition which prevented her accepting the post of Senior Youth Arts Officer, and that as a consequence she was made redundant from her employment and that her dismissal was unfair. The problem for the Appellant was carrying out evening work, because of her own young children, when the Respondent required evening work from those youth and community workers like the Appellant, whose task it was particularly to assist at youth clubs, which open in the evenings.

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 205 – 00 – 1705

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.265166

Preliminary hearing

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 739 – 98 – 0110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Anya v University of Oxford and Another EAT 17-Dec-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Anya v University of Oxford and Another EAT 17-Dec-1999
. .
See Also – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
See Also – Dr C C Anya v University of Oxford Dr S G Roberts EAT 4-Feb-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206712

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 236 – 98 – 0604

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Harold v Wiltshire Health Care NHS Trust EAT 1-Oct-1998
. .
See Also – Harrold v Wiltshire Healthcare NHS Trust EAT 1-Mar-1999
. .
Cited – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206329

The Trust appealed against a finding of race discrimination. He was a doctor working as a locum. He had been summarily dismissed in breach of the respondent’s own procedures and professional standards.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had erred in that it had made the assumption, for which there was no factual basis, that a hypothetical white comparator would have been treated differently. There was no warrant for making such an assumption, or for inferring that a comparable white doctor would have been treated any differently. Unreasonable treatment does not, without more, become discrimination merely because the person effected by it is from an ethnic minority.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 565 – 97 – 2104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 7

Citing:

Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council HL 16-Oct-1997
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found . .
Cited – Khanna v Ministry of Defence EAT 1981
EAT Browne-Wilkinson P said: ‘If the primary facts indicate that there has been discrimination for some kind, the employer is called on to give an explanation and, failing clear and specific explanation being . .
Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council HL 16-Oct-1997
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Effa v Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust CA 5-Nov-1999
The tribunal’s decision was found to have confused unreasonable treatment with discriminatory treatment. ‘It is common ground that an error in law is made by a tribunal if it finds less favourable treatment on racial grounds where there is no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206308

A medical report in a disability discrimination claim should deal with the doctor’s diagnosis of the impairments, the doctor’s observation of the applicant carrying out day to day activities and the ease with which he was able to perform those functions, together with any relevant opinion as to prognosis and the effect of medication. Morison P said: ‘The fact that the medical adviser had been told on some disability discrimination course or seminar that something was or was not a normal day-to-day activity is not of relevance to the tribunal’s determination. It is not for a doctor to express an opinion as to what is a normal day-to-day activity. That is a matter for them to consider using their basic common sense. Equally, it was not for the expert to tell the tribunal whether the impairments which had been found proved were or were not substantial. Again that was a matter for the employment tribunal to arrive at its own assessment. What, of course, a medical expert was entitled to do was to put forward her own observations of the applicant carrying out day-to-day activities and to comment on the case or otherwise with which she was performing those functions. She obviously also was entitled to give any prognosis that might be relevant and to give an opinion as to the position about the effect of medication.’

Judges:

Morison P

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1297 – 98 – 1902, [1999] IRLR 680

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Cited by:

Cited – Abadeh v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Oct-2000
EAT The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim under the 1995 Act. He was a telephone operator injured after a sudden shriek in his ear. They had found him not to be disabled within the 1995 Act.
Held: . .
Cited – Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 23-Jul-2007
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
A police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he . .
Cited – East Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206184

Appeal against rejection of claims of race discrimination in non-selection for promotion and as to reports about him.

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 125 – 98 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206283

Judges:

Kirkwood J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1289 – 97 – 1802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206122

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 739 – 98 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Anya v University of Oxford and Another EAT 1-Oct-1998
Preliminary hearing . .

Cited by:

See Also – Anya v University of Oxford and Another EAT 1-Oct-1998
Preliminary hearing . .
Appeal from – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
See Also – Dr C C Anya v University of Oxford Dr S G Roberts EAT 4-Feb-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.205932

Citations:

[2017] NIFET 00071 – 15FET

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.657087

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1491

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tiyamiyu v London Borough of Hackney EAT 16-Mar-1995
Appeal from terms of discovery order. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.141887

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
This was an appeal against a decision of the Employment Judge to refuse an application to strike out a claim for direct discrimination, a failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to a disability, and unfair dismissal. The Claimant was a Senior Veterinary Inspector. There were issues of underperformance in early 2015 to February 2016. The Claimant was diagnosed with prostate cancer on 8 February 2016 and informed his employer on the 9 February 2016. On the 17 February 2016, the employer terminated his employment. The Claimant contended that the high PSA levels prior to the diagnoses affected the workings of the brain and led to the mental impairment that caused his underperformance. At a Preliminary Hearing to consider these issues, the Tribunal found that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that there was any connection between the raised PSA level and the mental impairment leading to underperformance and concluded that the disability claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal declined, however, to strike out the three disability claims in relation to the period from 9 February 2016. He also declined to strike out the unfair dismissal claim taking account of the disability claim and potential evidential uncertainties.
The Tribunal’s decision not to strike out the disability claims was perverse in the sense that it was illogical. Having found that there was no factual connection or link between the underperformance and the prostate cancer, and having found that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, it was illogical not to strike out the claim. The appeal on those issues would be allowed and an Order striking out the three disability claims would be substituted. In relation to the unfair dismissal, the Tribunal erred in so far as it took into account the disability claims (as those have been struck out). The appeal against the refusal to strike out that claim would be allowed for that reason but the matter would need to be remitted to the Employment Tribunal to determine whether the claim for unfair dismissal had no reasonable prospects of success.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0154 – 18 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635149

SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant is a primary school teacher. He was dismissed for being in a classroom alone with a male Year 5 pupil (referred to here as ‘LK’) during the lunchtime break and offering sweets to LK. The Claimant’s conduct was in breach of guidelines issued to him for similar conduct some years earlier.
The Claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and disability – the Claimant is gay and HIV-positive – as well as claims of victimisation and harassment. The claims of unfair dismissal and direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation were upheld. The Respondents appealed against that decision on the basis that the Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the hypothetical comparator and/or that it reached a conclusion as to discrimination that was not supported by the facts.
Held: The Tribunal had erred in its approach to the hypothetical comparator. In particular, it had failed to ensure that the circumstances of the hypothetical comparator were not materially different from those of the Claimant. There was no proper factual foundation for the conclusion that the Claimant’s treatment was on the grounds of sexuality, the Tribunal’s decision being based on an incorrect factual premise and on factors relevant to individuals who were not the actual decision-makers.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0211 – 18 – 1312

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635150

RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination – Religion and Belief – Indirect Discrimination – Justification – Section 19(2)
Equality Act 2010
Bus drivers employed by the Respondent were required to work five out of seven days each week, including Fridays and Saturdays. This created difficulties for the Claimant who, as a Seventh Day Adventist, was required to respect the Sabbath by not working between sunset on a Friday to sunset on a Saturday. Accepting that the Respondent’s working arrangements imposed a provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) that placed the Claimant at a disadvantage, the question for the ET was whether the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It was accepted that the Respondent had established legitimate aims of ensuring efficiency, fairness to all staff, the maintenance of a harmonious workforce, and recruitment and retention but the ET considered it had failed to demonstrate that the PCP was a proportionate of achieving these aims, in particular because the Respondent had failed to adduce sufficient evidence and had not been able to demonstrate that its aims could not be met by accommodating the working arrangements requested by the Claimant. The Respondent appealed.
Held: Allowing the appeal.
When carrying out the requisite assessment under section 19(2) of the Equality Act 2010, there was a distinction between justifying the application of the rule to a particular individual and justifying the rule in the particular circumstances of the business (Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] ICR 704 SC, and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] IRLR 601, SC applied). In the present case, the ET’s focus had been on the application of the PCP to the Claimant; it had failed to carry out the requisite assessment of that PCP in the circumstances of the business (see Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax [2005] ICR 1565 CA). The matter would be remitted to the same ET for reconsideration of this question.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0171 – 18 – 2112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635145

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal

SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION

The Claimant was a 42 year old primary school Head Teacher. He was openly gay. He met two 17 year old males on Grindr and the three of them had sex.

The Local Authority set up a Professional Abuse Strategy Meeting which concluded that no criminal offence had been committed and no child protection issue arose. The School nevertheless brought disciplinary proceedings. There were numerous procedural errors which amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the investigation and the disciplinary hearing. The panel of School Governors decided to dismiss the Claimant. He appealed against the decision, which had the legal effect of keeping his contract alive. There were further procedural errors in relation to the appeal and, before the appeal hearing, the Claimant resigned claiming constructive dismissal.
He brought proceedings in the ET claiming unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination.
The ET found that he had affirmed the contract by bringing his appeal but that the continuing procedural errors in connection with the appeal entitled him to resign and that his claim of unfair constructive dismissal therefore succeeded. On the discrimination claim the ET found that the way he had been treated overall gave rise to a reversal of the burden of proof and that, in relation to the investigating officer, that burden was not satisfied and he had been subjected to sexual orientation discrimination, but that adequate explanations were provided in relation to the other parties involved, including the Local Authority lawyer and the Governors of the School.
The School appealed against the finding that the procedural errors in relation to the appeal amounted to a breach of the term of trust and confidence. The Claimant responded by saying that, regardless of the merits of this argument, it was irrelevant because the ET had been wrong to find that the Claimant had affirmed the contract by bringing his internal appeal. The School’s appeal was dismissed by the EAT on this basis for two reasons: (a) the ET were wrong to find that bringing the appeal gave rise to affirmation; rather it was a case of an employee giving his employer an opportunity to remedy the breach(es) of the implied term which arose from the investigation and disciplinary hearing and (b) in any event the School had expressly stated at an earlier hearing that they were not taking the affirmation point.
The School also appealed against the finding of discrimination on the basis that the ET were wrong to find that the burden of proof had been reversed. The EAT found that there were sufficient facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn and that the reverse onus was justified. The ET had found that the investigating officer had not given an adequate alternative explanation for his conduct and the finding of discrimination by him was accordingly upheld.
The Claimant cross-appealed on discrimination in relation to the Local Authority lawyer and the School Governors, maintaining that the ET had failed to take account of relevant evidence, had reached perverse conclusions and/or had failed to give adequate reasons for finding that there were adequate explanations for their conduct to satisfy the reverse burden of proof. The cross-appeal was allowed only in relation to the Governors; the ET’s finding that they had ‘effectively abandoned their roles’ and allowed their decisions to be taken by Local Authority officers ‘by proxy’ was not consistent with other factual findings and in any event the ET should have asked itself why the Governors might have abandoned their roles and allowed their decisions to be taken ‘by proxy’. The question whether the Governors had discriminated against the Claimant was remitted to the same ET.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0298 – 17 – 2203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635156

Citations:

[2003] NIFET 523 – 00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.237374

Lord Justice Kerr said: ‘Firstly, as I have pointed out, it was the applicant in Enderby [1993] IRLR 591 who first used the expression ‘almost exclusively’ to refer to the female group. I consider that the Court of Justice was merely reflecting the factual situation which obtained in that case in so stating its conclusion. Secondly, and more importantly, the relevance of the number of females in the group is an indicator of it being traditionally a less well paid group on account of its being composed mainly of women. Logically a group comprising 75% females and 25% males has the capacity to provide such an indication. Whether it does in fact is a matter for the tribunal to decide.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Kerr

Citations:

[1997] IRLR 92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson and others EAT 26-Mar-2007
The council appealed a finding that there was no genuine material factor justifying a difference in pay, and in particular the availability of bonus schemes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.253247

EAT Sex Discrimination – Others

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 13 – 99 – 2810, EAT/13/99

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205706

The claimant had complained that a decision of the respondent to cancel his nursing home registration was unlawful racial discrimination. He now appealed a decision to strike out his claim as vexatious and frivolous.
Held: It was not clear that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had power to dismiss an appeal and the case should go to the full EAT, and it was also arguable that to dismiss a claim as vexatious without consideration of evidence was wrong. The appeal should go forward.

Judges:

Altman J

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 744 – 99 – 1510

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Admn 18-Jul-1997
The applicant complained of having been struck off the register of nurses. He said that when he told the court that he wanted to appeal he was sent forms appropriate for a judicial review. He amended and submitted them. In correcting him, the court . .
See Also – Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council; Balamoody v Manchester City Magistrates’ Court Admn 10-Jun-1998
The applicant had been convicted of offences relating to the management of his nursing home, and had been struck off the Register of Nurses.
Held: It was no defence to the criminal charges that a member of staff had failed in her duties. The . .
See Also – Balamoody v Manchester Health Authority EAT 2-Mar-1999
The claimant appealed against orders striking out his complaint of unlawful racial discrimination. He had owned a nursing home regulated by the respondent authority. A senior white employee had broken regulations regarding safekeeping of drugs, but . .

Cited by:

Leave given – Balamoody v UkCC for Nursing Midwifery and Home Visitors EAT 5-Dec-2000
The claimant’s claim of unlawful race discrimination had been dismissed as an abuse of process by the EAT. The Tribunal now considered whether the EAT had power to make such a decision.
Held: The 1993 Regulations were more generous to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205672

EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

EAT/1345/01, [2001] UKEAT 1345 – 01 – 2711

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204491

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Reid Qc

Citations:

EAT/0551/01, [2001] UKEAT 0551 – 01 – 0811

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204506

Judges:

Pugsley HHJ

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 915 – 01 – 2111

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Catherall v Michelin Tyre Plc EAT 21-Oct-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204441

Judges:

Langstaff QC Rec

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 377 – 01 – 1109

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204199