The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his Force members. Liability was asserted against the chief constable under the De Vere case, but no assertion was pleaded to bring it within that rule.
Held: Police officers are not employees in the simple sense, and the Act did not make the Chief Constable vicariously liable.
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
Citations:
EAT/773/00, [2002] ICR 1135, [2001] UKEAT 773 – 00 – 2109
Links:
Statutes:
Race Relations Act 1976 16 32(3)
Citing:
Cited – Burton and Another v De Vere Hotels EAT 3-Oct-1996
Two black waitresses, clearing tables in the banqueting hall of a hotel, were made the butt of racist and sexist jibes by a guest speaker entertaining the assembled all-male company at a private dinner party.
Held: The employer of the . .
Cited – Sheikh v Chief Constable 1989
. .
See also – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 10-Jul-2000
. .
Cited by:
Distinguished – Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
Appeal from – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge CA 11-Dec-2001
. .
See Also – Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 13-Dec-2001
. .
See Also – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge CA 24-May-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Police, Employment, Employment, Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168310