EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
The Claimant suffered from plantar fasciitis and asthma. The Tribunal found disability discrimination in that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments in that (1) it did not discount a period of absence caused by plantar fasciitis in 2005 (at a time when neither party realised that the Claimant’s foot condition might amount to a disability) when determining to dismiss him for poor attendance in July 2007 and (2) it did not make further inquiries as to whether his absence in April 2007 might have been caused by an interaction between a flu jab and his asthma (the Respondent’s medical advice then being that the asthma was mild and did not amount to a disability and there being no medical evidence that the flu jab and the asthma might have interacted). The Respondent appealed on the grounds that the decision was not Meek compliant and other grounds.
Held: the decision was not Meek compliant. The Respondent could not see why it had lost and the case should be remitted for re-hearing before a different panel.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0507 – 08 – 2707

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372609

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Pregnancy and discrimination,br />The Employment Tribunal upheld complaint of continuing course of conduct amounting to discrimination on grounds of pregnancy. On appeal, the employers sought to argue that the Employment Tribunal had misapplied the statutory requirement that discrimination must be ‘on the ground of’ pregnancy. The Employment Tribunal found to have correctly stated and correctly applied the law to the facts found and appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0465 – 08 – 2807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372608

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Contract workers
Leeds contracted with WN for WN to provide housing services. WN contracted with Leeds for a department of Leeds to provide housing services back to WN so that WN could discharge its contractual duty to Leeds. WN employed Claimant. WN supplied Claimant to Leeds. Leeds employed Mr Chapman. Pursuant to section 7 Race Relations Act 1976, Claimant was a contract worker of WN to Leeds as principal. Leeds was liable for any discrimination by Mr Chapman. Leeds’ application to strike out the claim was correctly dismissed by Employment Judge.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0521 – 08 – 2104

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 7

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.372598

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Loss/mitigation
The Employment Tribunal had to decide whether the multiplier which it considered was the appropriate one under Table 9 of the Ogden Tables should be reduced by an appropriate discount pursuant to Table B in Section B of the explanatory notes to the Ogden Tables. The Employment Tribunal determined the appropriate discount pursuant to Table B without considering, in the particular context of the acts of the case, the likelihood of the Claimant having periods of unemployment or absence from work in the future as a result of ill health.

Judges:

Keith J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0151 – 09 – 0207

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361512

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Pregnancy and discrimination
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
The Claimant was a teacher working half of each term until she became pregnant. The Employment Tribunal did not err when it found it was not reasonably practicable for her to present her notice of maternity leave within the relevant window. The employer was refused permission to raise a new point on appeal, not raised by Counsel against the Claimant in person below, relating MAPLE Reg 7(5) (expiry of limited-term contract after maternity leave notice). The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that refusal to give back her job, communicated one month in advance, terminated the relationship by dismissal on notice on the date she was due back. The Claimant had continuous employment, the claim was in time and the findings of discrimination and unfair dismissal were u

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0082 – 09 – 1805

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361502

EAT Response struck out by Tribunal after evidence led on the merits, before submissions and before remedies hearing in claim by a GP of unfair dismissal and age discrimination against practice in which he had been a doctor in circumstances where a documents and questions order found not to have been complied with and there had been prior late production of documents. Tribunal’s decision on strike out motion reversed on appeal. It had not been entitled to find that there had been non compliance with orders and the circumstances did not justify taking the draconian step of striking out the response.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0065 – 08 – 0206

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361504

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Appeal against Employment Tribunal’s decision to uphold the Claimant’s claim of racial discrimination. Main ground took a Chapman v Simon point. The specific complaints made were all rejected but the Employment Tribunal found discrimination on grounds of race in respect of a complaint not made. Appeal allowed on that basis.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0025 – 09 – 1205

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361499

The employees appealed against dismissal of their equal pay claims. They said that having been transferred under a TUPE arrangement, and now having to claim against the new employer, they argued that the six months time limit started from the time of the transfer.
Held: The appeal failed. The TUPE regulations would not put an employee in a better position than before the transfer. They did not affect the rights under the 1970 Act. (Smith LJ dissenting)

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 729, Times 06-Oct-2009, [2009] IRLR 721, [2009] ICR 1486

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970, Equal Pay Amendment Regulations 1983 (SI 1983 No 1794), Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No 1656), Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No 1794)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sodexo Ltd v Gutridge and others EAT 31-Jul-2008
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
The claimants alleged that their employer had been in breach of their rights under the Equal Pay Act 1970. They . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abdulla and Others v Birmingham City Council QBD 17-Dec-2010
The defendant applied for an order declaring that the claim would better be brought in an employment tribunal and that accordingly the County court should decline jurisdiction.
Held: The application was dismissed: ‘ I reject the submission by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.347702

EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The claimant was a Registrar who, amongst other things, registered marriages. When the Civil Partnerships Act came into force, she refused to participate in registering such partnerships because to do so was inconsistent with her religious beliefs. The council insisted that she should undertake at least some of these duties, and disciplined her and threatened her with dismissal when she refused.
She alleged that she had been discriminated against by reason of her religious belief in various ways. The allegations were that there had been direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment. The indirect discrimination argument was based on the fact that the council had chosen to designate the claimant as someone suitable to do civil partnership work notwithstanding that they knew that she had genuine and strong religious reasons for not wanting to do it.
The EAT held that the Tribunal had erred in law and that on the evidence adduced before the Tribunal there was no proper basis for a tribunal concluding that any of these forms of discrimination had been established.
Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and a finding that there was no discrimination substituted.

Judges:

Elias J P

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0453 – 08 – 1912, [2009] ICR 387, [2009] BLGR 305, [2009] IRLR 154

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Partnership Act 2004, Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No 1660) 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT 10-Sep-2009
EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
Council employee seconded to registered social landlord – Secondment comes to an end, so that he is formally redundant – Employee aged 49 and . .
Appeal from – Ladele v London Borough of Islington CA 15-Dec-2009
The appellant was employed as a registrar. She refused to preside at same sex partnership ceremonies, saying that they conflicted with her Christian beliefs.
Held: The council’s decision had clearly disadvantaged the claimant, and the question . .
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd EAT 30-Nov-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal
Christian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd CA 29-Apr-2010
The employee renewed his application for leave to appeal against refusal of his discrimination claim on the grounds of religious belief. He worked as a relationship sex therapist, and had signed up to the employer’s equal opportunities policy, but . .
Appeal from – Ladele and McFarlane v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2011
Statement of Facts and Questions to parties . .
At EAT – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.279794

The relevant date for determining whether discrimination exists is the date of the alleged discrimination.

Judges:

Lord Johnston

Citations:

[2000] UKEAT 645 – 00 – 0111, [2002] ICR 729

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd EAT 25-Oct-2001
The point of time at which to assess disability is at the time of the alleged discrimination. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.265654

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:

Bailii

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

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Whistleblowing
Appellant raised concerns with employer about immigration status of staff and students, and other alleged irregularities – Dismissed shortly afterwards – Claim of ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal but also of detriment and dismissal for making a protected disclosure contrary to ss 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Held:
(1) Tribunal failed to deal with claim under s. 4 7
(2) On its factual findings as to the reason for the dismissal the Tribunal should have found unfair dismissal contrary to s. 103A – It wrongly focused only on the Appellant’s most recent disclosure, and held that that was not the principal reason for her dismissal, having regard to her previous history of difficulties with the Respondent – That approach failed to take into account that that history itself largely consisted of other protected disclosures.

Judges:

Underhill J, P

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0448 – 08 – 0505

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 47B 103A

Citing:

Cited – Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd CA 17-Apr-2008
The claimant had argued that she had been unfairly dismissed since her dismissal was founded in her making a protected disclosure. The ET had not accepted either her explanation or that of the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal failed, and . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v M S Knight EAT 18-Nov-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347182

EAT 244 Equal Pay claims by classroom assistants, support for learning assistants and nursery nurses employed by local authority. They sought to compare themselves with male manual workers based elsewhere, at depots and at a swimming pool, and employed as road workers, groundsmen, refuse collectors, refuse drivers and a leisure attendant. There were also male manual workers employed by the local authority at schools (i.e. the same establishments as them), as janitors, but the claimants did not seek to compare themselves with them. The issue was whether or not the claimants and their chosen comparators were in the same employment for the purposes of section 1(2)(c) of the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Employment Tribunal found that they were. Judgment reversed on appeal. On a proper construction of section 1(6) of the 1970 Act, the claimants and comparators were not in the same employment. It had not been established that the comparators would or could have worked, in their comparator jobs, at schools. Even if it was possible to hypothesise that they could have been so employed, it had not been established that their terms and conditions would have been broadly similar to those on which they were employed when not based at schools.

Judges:

Smith L J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0047 – 08 – 2404, [2009] SFTD 369, [2009] UKFTT 139 (TC), [2009] IRLR 915, [2009] ICR 1362, [2009] STI 2146

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .

Cited by:

At EAT – North and Others v Dumfries and Galloway Council and Another SCS 7-Jan-2011
Equal pay claim: whether claimants and comparators ‘in the same employment’ . .
At EAT – North and Others v Dumfries and Galloway Council (Scotland) SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought to bring an equal pay claim, but the prospective male comparators were employed at a different establishment and under different conditions. They appealed from a decision that they had not met the threshhold to make a claim.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347175

The point of time at which to assess disability is at the time of the alleged discrimination.

Judges:

Altman J

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 645 – 00 – 2510, [2002] IRLR 24

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2000
The relevant date for determining whether discrimination exists is the date of the alleged discrimination. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.204297

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
Employee dismissed after being off sick for two years suffering from depression – Claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal
Disability discrimination claims held to be unsustainable in the light of London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm, Child Support Agency v Truman, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Aylott and Hose Express Thurrock Ltd. v Jacomb followed
Part of disability discrimination claim prima facie out of time – Employment Tribunal wrong to hold that reg. 15 of Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 excluded the jurisdiction to extend time on ‘just and equitable’ grounds – Time should have been extended if claim had otherwise been viable
No inconsistency between Tribunal’s reasoning on discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0292 – 08 – 0805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346168

EAT Adequacy of Reasoning for finding that it was not just and equitable to extend time for the Claimant to bring a claim of disability discrimination.
Given the factual findings and the paucity of reasoning in the conclusions, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0549 – 08 – 3103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346161

The claimant, a cabin crew member of the defendant’s staff sought damages for sex discrimination.
Held: Sedley LJ said that the pool chosen should be that which suitably tests the particular discrimination complained of.

Judges:

Sedley LJ s

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1020, [2008] IRLR 74

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council and others v Wallace and others (Scotland) HL 22-Jan-1998
80% of the men who had been employed since 1 April 1997 had got protection under TUPE whereas only 66.66% of the women had. It was argued that this difference in percentages was sufficient to justify a claim of indirect discrimination.
Held: . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.260036

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 948 – 01 – 2203

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hogg v Dover College EAT 1990
The claimant asserted unfair dismissal after his contract was changed to provide that his post as head of the history department would be part time. He had been ill, and the head teacher reduced his teaching periods. He accepted the change in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.202626

EAT Race Discrimination : Indirect – RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
Until 2002 the only Chaplains employed by the Prison Service were Christians. Since then, Chaplains of other faiths have been recruited. The pay scale for Chaplains reflects – inter alia – length of service.
The Claimant, a Muslim Chaplain, was appointed in 2004.
His claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief was rejected. The Tribunal were satisfied that, although he had been subject to a PCP which had put him at a particular disadvantage, the employer had established that the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: Equality Act 2010 section 19
The Claimant appealed on ‘justification’.
The employer cross-appealed on whether the Tribunal had been wrong to include – as members of the ‘pool’ of comparators – pre-2002 Chaplains.
Cross-appeal allowed: the Tribunal had erred in including pre-2002 Chaplains. Their circumstances were materially different to those of subsequent chaplains: Equality Act 2010 section 23. The Claimant had been treated in exactly the same way as any chaplain, of whatever race or religion, appointed at the same time as him.
Appeal dismissed: although the Tribunal had erred in determining that the employers had established ‘proportionate means’ (because it had failed to consider obvious alternatives), the appeal failed in light of the success of the cross-appeal and the Claimant’s claims stood dismissed.

Judges:

Luba QC

Citations:

[2013] UKEAT 0215 – 13 – 1501, [2014] Eq LR 206, [2014] ICR 472, [2014] IRLR 520

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Naeem v The Secretary of State for Justice CA 9-Dec-2015
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for discrimination when under the 1952 Act, there was a requirement to appoint a member as pastor of the prison a Clergyman of the Church of England, and other chaplains, including himself, an . .
At EAT – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.520020

Not upheld

Judges:

Mummery. Lewison LJJ, Sirark Waller

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1621, [2013] Eq LR 130, [2013] IRLR 206

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Audit Commission v Haq and Others EAT 18-Mar-2011
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material Factor Defence and Justification
Two roles (‘IIO’ and ‘SIIO’) amalgamated into a new role (‘SIO’), on the basis that affected employees retain their existing points on the . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.466790

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material Factor Defence and Justification
Two roles (‘IIO’ and ‘SIIO’) amalgamated into a new role (‘SIO’), on the basis that affected employees retain their existing points on the relevant pay scale – Following amalgamation the two highest-paid of the eleven ISOs are the only two males, both ex-SIIOs – Common ground that difference between the pay of the IIOs and the SIIOs pre-amalgamation was not discriminatory – Tribunal find that the differential is indirectly discriminatory and that objective justification had not been proved
HELD:
(1) The evidence did not justify a finding of prima facie indirect discrimination on either an Enderby or a PCP basis; and accordingly it was unnecessary for the Respondent to prove objective justification
(2) Even if justification were required it had been proved – A pay protection policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim provided that, as here, it did not incorporate past discrimination

Judges:

Underhill P J

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0123 – 10 – 1803

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Haq and Others v The Audit Commission CA 6-Dec-2012
Not upheld . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.430682

EAT Victimisation Discrimination – Whistleblowing
By agreement, a preliminary hearing was converted to a full hearing. The Employment Tribunal finding of fact that protected disclosures were not made were not disturbed. It was not necessary to decide whether, if they had been, the Respondent’s action was on the ground of such disclosure.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0354 – 07 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342116

EAT Disability Discrimination: Reasonable adjustments
Practice and Procedure: time for appealing
The Employment Tribunal did not err when it dismissed the disabled Claimant’s claim that the Respondent unlawfully breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments when her made to measure office chair broke and, over 20 days pending repair, six substitutes were provided for her. The nature of the adjustment and the time it takes to put and keep it in place relate to reasonableness and are questions of fact.
Observations on request for a transcript out of time.

Citations:

[2007] UKEAT 0413 – 07 – 2012

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342118

EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Age Discrimination
Appeal allowed in part. Claim for unfair dismissal on grounds of age discrimination does not require prior submission of grievance under S32(2) Employment Act 2002.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

UKEAT/0181/07/LA, [2007] UKEAT 0181 – 07 – 1105

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342109

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed in circumstances where she was discriminated against on grounds of sex. Appeal upheld and case remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal. In concluding that there had been unlawful discrimination the tribunal had speculated as to the reasons why there appeared to be an imbalance in the workforce as between men and women.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0044 – 08 – 0603

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341249

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct
The Employment Tribunal erred in treating the motive of the Respondent as ‘the nub of the issue’ in a claim of direct race discrimination. It further erred in considering the fact that all non-British nationals would have been treated in the same way as the appellant to be relevant to such a claim. The claim of direct discrimination was remitted to a different Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal had made a finding of indirect discrimination which was not appealed by the Respondents. Jaffrey v Department of Environment Transport and Regions [2002] IRLR 688 considered.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0391 – 08 – 2701

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.337760

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability
Employment Tribunal found that a police constable who suffered from ME and had mobility problems between about 2am and 4am when working night shift as part of a ‘treble two system’ (2 day shifts followed by 2 back shifts followed by 2 night shifts then four days off) was disabled. On appeal, the Respondent argued that the Tribunal should have determined that the Claimant was not carrying out normal day-to-day to activities when he experienced mobility problems. Appeal refused.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0046 – 08 – 0304

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341210

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Justification / Burden of proof
Employment Tribunal found direct sex discrimination and that the employer was unable to justify it. The EAT held reasoning of Tribunal inadequate and failed to properly apply the burden of proof. The Employment Tribunal also made an order for costs when there was no basis to do so. Appeal allowed and case remitted to a fresh Tribunal. Costs order vacated.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0319 – 08 – 1404

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.337764

The employee’s union had written to the employer to say that the employee had a claim for back pay under the 1970 Act. The employer appealed a finding that this was sufficient to launch the claim.
Held: The appeal failed. It was wrong to interpret such requirements too technically so as to give rise to satellite litigation of this sort and to discourage attempts to settle cases. Where a statement was intended to mislead or distract the employer, then it might be dealt with as an abuse.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Etherton

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 309, Times 28-Apr-2009, [2009] IRLR 12, [2009] IRLR 452, [2009] ICR 1011, [2009] ICR 281

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002, Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Step In Time Ltd v Fox and Another EAT 3-Nov-2008
EAT STATUTORY DISCIPLINE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
Whether infringed
The employment judge held that the two claimants had complied with the statutory grievance procedures and that the Tribunal had . .
Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.330952

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 to show prior salaried employment.
Held: Having mis-identified the question the tribunal had the wrong starting point for calculating the proportions of men and women affected, and the case was to be remitted. After such a calculation, the tribunal would then have to ask whether the employer had considered alternative approaches and could justify the differences. The task of the employment tribunal was to carry out what was described as a ‘critical evaluation’.
Identifying the pool of comparators was not a matter of discretion or of fact-finding but of logic.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 529, [2002] ICR 1189

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 76/207/EEC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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 . .

Cited by:

Reference from – Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College for Education and Employment ECJ 13-Jan-2004
ECJ Principle of equal pay for men and women – Direct effect – Meaning of worker – Self-employed female lecturer undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that which is undertaken in the same college by . .
Cited – A C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service EAT 27-Jul-2005
The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.147484

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct / Comparison
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Disposal of appeal including remission
Direct racial discrimination – correct comparator – whether earlier CMD ruling misinterpreted by Employment Tribunal at substantive hearing – answering correct question in determining issues in case – case remitted for further consideration to same Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0431 – 08 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.328008

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION: Other forms of victimisation
The Employment Judge wrongly struck out the Claimant’s claim of victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 when, post-termination of employment, the Claimant contended the Respondent took steps to avoid paying a sum awarded by the Employment Tribunal and ordered by the County Court.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0315 – 08 – 1609

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.317872

A sentence of imprisonment was entirely appropriate for a case of bullying which came to be sexual assault at the work place carried out in public and over a period of time. It was a public humiliation. The abuse of his position of authority by another defendant who then himself committed a sexual assault, also justified imprisonment. Sentences of 12 and 21 months were entirely appropriate. Women were entitled to protection in the work place.

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.88234

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability related discrimination / Compensation
Whether the Novacold comparator in cases of disability-related discrimination must be replaced in employment cases by the Malcolm comparator. Answer, yes. Application to facts of this pre-Malcolm case. Effect on compensation. Appeal allowed; case remitted to same Employment Tribunal for further consideration.

Judges:

Peter Clark J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0293 – 08 – 0502, [2009] IRLR 277, [2009] ICR 576

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280455

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proof
The Tribunal in applying Igen and Madarassy were correct in their approach to primary findings and inference, particularly in relation to knowledge of the protected acts and reasons for the detriment.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0061 – 08 – 2301

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280159

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination / Burden of proof
The Claimant was made redundant after being placed in a pool of one. He brought proceedings alleging race discrimination and victimisation. In finding for him the Tribunal assumed a hypothetical comparator of a different race but did not consider how such a comparator would have been treated. It merely assumed that because there was a hypothetical comparator the onus of proof had passed and then found the onus had not discharged. The Tribunal also assumed the ‘reverse burden’ applied to the victimisation claim.

Judges:

Reid QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0031 – 08 – 2601

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280160

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Whether an Employment Tribunal is free to reach a finding of discrimination when an agreed expert’s medical report does not support such a finding.

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0284 – 08 – 2001

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280162

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
The claimant applied for promotion to a more senior management post. He was disabled by his stammer. The employers made various adjustments to the interview process as a result; but they did not agree to dispense with an interview altogether. The ET found that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

Burke QC J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0530 – 07 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279940

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Article 141/European law
EPA and Article 141 claims. The appeal and cross appeals give rise to various EPA issues; whether, like Article 141, section 1(6) requires a single source, that is a single body responsible for the inequality of pay which could restore equal treatment, or whether it is a complete code in itself; whether the Respondent Trust, the Whitley Councils or the Secretary of State are single sources on the facts; whether there were common terms and conditions between establishments under section 1(6) EPA; whether the change of terms and conditions in June 2002 was so radical that the contract was rescinded thereby causing the limitation period to start running. The cross appeals related to the same issues, save for the first ground which raised the question of whether the Employment Tribunal should have considered its analysis of terms and conditions only at the date of presentation of the claim or whether it should have done so throughout the six year period.

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0121 – 07 – 1812

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279795

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Tribunal found that the Appellant had discriminated against the Respondent by failing to consider reinstatement to their register of nurses or to actually reinstate her to the register of nurses or to actually reinstate her to the register. The ET allowed an appeal on the grounds that (a) the point has not been pleaded or argued before the ET and (b) if the ET considered the issue to be a live one it should have clearly alerted the parties to it and given them the opportunity of dealing with it. Observations on amendment in a race discrimination case made following Ministry of Defence v Hay (UKEAT/0571/07/CEA).

Judges:

Birtles J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0169 – 08 – 1411

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279792

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Continuing act
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Extension of time: just and equitable
There was no error of law or perversity in the judgment of the Employment Tribunal that the dismissal of Mr Grimshaw was not part of a continuing act of discrimination and that, apart from that relating to dismissal, his complaints of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, harassment and victimisation were out of time. Nor did the Tribunal err in concluding that this was not a case where it should exercise its discretion under Regulation 34(4) of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 to consider the claims.

Judges:

Slade J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0299 – 08 – 2511

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 34(4)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279939

Judges:

Lord Justice Bean

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 67

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.657379

hmlr_wakefieldEAT2008

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
The claimant applied for promotion to a more senior management post. He was disabled by his stammer. The employers made various adjustments to the interview process as a result; but they did not agree to dispense with an interview altogether. The ET found that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Held on appeal:
(1) that the ET’s conclusion that an expert’s report advised dispensing with a formal interview unless it could not reasonably be avoided was perverse; that was not what the expert had advised.
(2) that the ET’s conclusion that there was no oral content in the post for which the claimant had applied was also perverse
(3) that the ET’s assertion that if a disabled employee honestly asserted an entitlement to an adjustment the employers were bound to make it unless they could establish good reason for not doing so was wrong in law.
The ET’s decision reversed.
Comments made
(1) on the unjustifiable use of strong and vivid language in ET judgments HM Prison Service v Johnson [2007] IRLR 95 followed
(ii) on the undesirability of the ET, when asked a question or to supply notes by the EAT, providing self-justificatory or argumentative responses.

Judges:

Burke QC J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0530 – 08 – 1712

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – HM Prison Service v Johnson EAT 6-Aug-2007
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less Favourable Treatment / Reasonable Adjustments / Justification
The Claimant was a prison psychologist who developed a depressive illness amounting to a disability within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278872

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Extension of time: just and equitable
In considering whether it is just and equitable to exercise its discretion under Section 68 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to extend the time for the submission of the Originating Application the Employment Tribunal should have regard to the total period of delay.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0259 – 08 – 2509

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 68

Citing:

Cited – Chohan v Derby Law Centre EAT 2-Mar-2004
EAT Employment Tribunal claim brought out of time because of Solicitor’s negligent advice. Application of British Coal Corporation -v- Keeble [1999] IRLR 337. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278234

EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The claimant was a Christian who objected to BA’s policy of requiring jewellery to be worn concealed by the uniform. There were exceptions for those whose religions required them to wear items that could not be so concealed. She brought claims of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religious belief, as well as harassment discrimination. All these claims failed. She appealed against the finding of indirect discrimination only. The Employment Tribunal had held that there was no such discrimination because there was no evidence that a group of Christians were put at a particular religious disadvantage when compared with non-Christians. The EAT dismissed the appeal and held that this was a cogent and justified conclusion displaying no error of law.

Judges:

Elias P

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0123 – 08 – 2011, [2009] IRLR 78, [2009] ICR 303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Eweida v British Airways plc CA 16-Oct-2009
Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform. . .
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd EAT 30-Nov-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal
Christian counsellor dismissed by Relate for failing to give an unequivocal commitment to counsel same-sex couples.
At EAT – Eweida v British Airways Plc CA 12-Feb-2010
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly . .
At EAT – Eweida And Chaplin v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2011
Statement of Facts and questions to the parties . .
At EAT – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
At EAT – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
ECHR Article 9-1
Manifest religion or belief
Disciplinary measures against employees for wearing religious symbols (cross) at work or refusing to perform duties they considered incompatible with their . .
Cited – Grainger Plc and Others v Nicholson EAT 3-Nov-2009
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278203

EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Equal value
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
Equal pay claims: local authority home helps. Time bar. Claims in respect of inequality of pay between 1998 and February 2005 presented in December 2007. In February 2005, home helps took up posts of social care officers. Tribunal satisfied that these were new contracts and six month period to lodge claims ran from that date. Appeal refused.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0026 – 08 – 2810

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.278201

EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
It was conceded that the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory dismissal procedures. The Tribunal also found that he had been subject to age discrimination.
The employers raised various grounds of appeal. The EAT held that those directed towards the Tribunal’s assessment of remedy disclosed no error of law, save that no allowance had been given for pay in lieu made by the employer and credit had to be given for that. However the EAT held that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to age discrimination. In the circumstances, the only proper inference was that there was no evidence of such discrimination.
The appeal therefore succeeded in part.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0234 – 08 – 2210

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277302

EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been discriminated on grounds of age. The employers introduced a requirement that to be graded at the top grade, and to receive the higher salary linked to that grade, an employee had to have a law degree. The claimant submitted that this was age discrimination. The Tribunal agreed on the grounds that given his age – he was 61 – he was not able to obtain a degree before he retired, unlike younger workers who would be able to do so. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that there was discrimination directed against those without a law degree who were within the 60-65 age bracket. The Tribunal considered the issue of justification but concluded that although the employers were seeking to achieve a legitimate objective, namely the recruitment and retention of staff of an appropriate quality, nonetheless the imposition of this criterion was not a proportionate means of achieving it.
The EAT held that there was no discrimination. The claimant had suffered no particular disadvantage as a result of his age. He was treated in precisely the same way as everyone else. It was true that he could not materially benefit from any law degree he might obtain, but that was because his working life was limited. Any improvement in terms which an employer gives will benefit older workers for a shorter period than younger ones. Any disadvantage can properly be described as the consequence of age, but it is not the consequence of age discrimination.
However, had the claimant been able to establish the requisite group disadvantage, the EAT would have upheld the finding that any age discrimination was not justified.

Judges:

Elias P J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0191 – 08 – 2710, [2009] ICR 223, [2009] IRLR 262

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police CA 27-Apr-2010
The claimant alleged indirect age discrimination, in not having received a promotion to a post of legal adviser to the defendant. He did not have a law degree and did not want to undertake the study required which would have him acquiring the degree . .
At EAT – Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant had failed in his claim for indirect age discrimination. Approaching retirement, he complained that new conditions allowing advancement to graduates only, discriminated against him since he could not complete a degree before retiring. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277182

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
Tribunal was entitled to conclude that a combination of adjustments would have allowed an employee suffering from disability to return to work.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0178 – 08 – 1710

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Project Management Institute v Latif EAT 10-May-2007
EAT The Appellant is a qualifying body, subject to section 14 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Tribunal found that it had failed to make a reasonable adjustment in the arrangements it made for sitting an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277156

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction / reasons / Burns-Barke
Perversity
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
RACE DISCRIMINATION
Direct
Inferring discrimination
SEX DISCRIMINATION
Direct
Inferring discrimination
Over long Employment Tribunal Reasons. Meek compliance. Delay in promulgating Judgment. Perversity. Reason for dismissal (s103A). Race and sex discrimination. Victimisation.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0001 – 08 – 0310

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276687

eat EQUAL PAY ACT: Material factor defence and justification
An Employment Tribunal did not err when it found that bonus schemes created in the 1970s in order to improve productivity were a sham and could not be used in justification as a genuine material factor to a claim of equal pay. The Tribunal erred in one respect when finding there was adverse disparate effect on women when they comprised 4 out of 28 workers in a relevant group and it had been submitted at the Employment Tribunal that this did not show a prima facie case of indirect discrimination. Appeals dismissed save for the above.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0007 – 08 – 1509

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276426

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct
Consent to appeal with controlled remission to fresh Employment Tribunal, given by Claimant at close of Respondent’s opening.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0146 – 08 – 1507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276510

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate jurisdiction< br />On application of Race Relations Act 1976 the Employment Tribunal did not err in rejecting the Claimant’s complaint that, in context, depiction of her as Mediterranean was unlawful discrimination.
Employment Appeal Tribunal procedure on appeals explained.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0006 – 08 – 2207, [2008] IRLR 945

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276509

EAT Practice and Procedure: Estoppel or abuse of process
Disability Discrimination: Reasonable adjustments
Disability discrimination claim dismissed by Employment Judge on the grounds of issue estoppel following settlement of two personal injury claims. Appeal allowed by consent and case remitted to ET.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0131 – 08 – 2706

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276418

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Jurisdiction
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Working outside the jurisdiction
Where an employee of French nationality had worked for a French registered company for three years in Paris followed by two years in London, and alleged a course of sex discrimination and harassment against her extending over the whole five year period, the allegations of discrimination in Paris were not justiciable in an English employment tribunal.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0202 – 08 – 1808

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272840

EAT Equal Pay Act 1970 s1(2)(c) claim in respect of period prior to implementation of JES which banded Claimant together with her male comparators. Effect of that banding on s1(2)(c) claim. Whether requirement for Independent Expert ought to be withdrawn. Proper exercise of discretion by Employment Judge. Appeal against refusal to withdraw requirement dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0163 – 08 – 1308

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(2)(c)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hovell v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital NHS Trust CA 9-Jul-2009
The claimant appealed against dismissal of her claim for equal pay. The tribunal had said that she had failed to provide evidence from an independent expert that her work was of equal value to that of a comparator.
Held: On the facts, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272547

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION

Detriment

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Wrongful dismissal

Appellant wrongly and unreasonably accused by employers of sexual harassment. Employers accept his denial but instruct him not seek to discuss the charges with the alleged victim. Appellant subsequently disobeys that instruction and is summarily dismissed.
Tribunal holds:
(1) Appellant not entitled to a claim that dismissal was discriminatory because no such claim raised until closing submissions.
(2) Original accusations constituted racial discrimination within s.1(1)(a) of Race Relations Act 1976 but not unlawful because they did not constitute a detriment for purposes of s.4(2)(c).

(3) Summary dismissal for disobedience of instruction lawful.

Appeal dismissed on (1) and (3) but allowed on (2) – Making of false and unreasonable disciplinary accusations capable of constituting a detriment even though no sanctions were imposed: De Souza v Automobile Association [1986] ICR 514 considered.

Judges:

Underhill J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0554 – 07 – 1006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a) 4(2)

Citing:

Cited – De Souza v Automobile Association CA 19-Dec-1985
The claimant appealed against a finding that there had been no race discrimation in her case. She had overheard a manager refer to her as ‘the wog’. She said that this was sufficient to mean that she suffered a detriment. The employer replied that . .

Cited by:

Cited – Orr v Milton Keynes Council EAT 5-Nov-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL:
Reasonableness of dismissal
RACE DISCRIMINATION:
Direct
Where discrimination and unfair dismissal allegations overlap and the Employment Tribunal hears and disbelieves . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271332

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is a fact found by an Employment Tribunal on the basis of medical and other evidence. When a consultant gave a range of dates for the onset of a condition, the Employment Tribunal did not err in taking the outside bracket in context with the Claimant’s own account. The Employment Tribunal’s findings of discrimination taking the form of failure to adjust and harassment were upheld, the EAT rejecting appeals on preliminary points on the statutory grievance procedure and the meaning of disability.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0079 – 08 – 2805

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002, Disability Discrimination Act 2005, Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 1996, Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations 2006

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Cited – Pay v Lancashire Probation Service EAT 29-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained . .
Cited – Yeboah v Crofton CA 31-May-2002
The industrial tribunal had made a finding of direct race discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the decision perverse, and ordered a rehearing. The applicant appealed that order.
Held: The EAT must be careful not to take . .
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 – A Blitz v Equant Integration Services Ltd (T/A Orange Business Services) EAT 2-Nov-2007
EAT Disability discrimination: Less favourable treatment / Harassment
Practice and Procedure: Application/claim / Amendment
The Tribunal applied wrong tests in respect of disability related . .
Cited – Chapman v Simon CA 1994
The court considered the approach where a party sought to raise on appeal a complaint not made in the case presented to the tribunal.
Held: An Employment Tribunal must decide the issues which are put before it and should not decide issues . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Pay v Lancashire Probation Service EAT 29-Oct-2003
The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained . .
Cited – Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another EAT 22-Jul-2004
EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET.
(i) ET must, if . .
Cited – Canary Wharf Management Limited v Edebi EAT 3-Mar-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – striking-out/dismissal
Grievance procedures. Were they complied with? Held not to be in the circumstances of this case. Observations on what counts as compliance and how . .
Cited – Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Dolan EAT 22-Apr-2008
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Disposal of appeal including remission
Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
Unfair Dismissal – Constructive . .
Cited – Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester EAT 21-Jun-1996
The Industrial Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon the act or acts of which complaint is made to it. The questions on a complaint of race discrimination are: (a) Did the act complained of actually occur? (b) If the act . .
Cited – Taylor v OCS Group Ltd CA 31-May-2006
The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster EAT 14-Jun-2011
EAT Disability Discrimination : Reasonable Adjustments. If there is a real prospect of an adjustment removing a disabled employee’s disadvantage, that would be sufficient to make the adjustment a reasonable one, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271317

Employer’s appeal against finding of indirect discrimination under implied equality clause.

Judges:

Waller VP, Sedley, Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 875, [2008] IRLR 815

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271140

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
Having correctly held that three of the Claimant’s four DDA claims were out of time, parity of reasoning made the fourth out of time as well, there being no continuing act for the Claimant to rely on. Judgment set aside.

Judges:

McMullen QC J

Citations:

[2008] UKEAT 0409 – 07 – 2801

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 8

Citing:

Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 July 2022; Ref: scu.270854