cvs_borghEAT072013
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
AGE DISCRIMINATION
The authorities on the alternative definition of ’employee’ in Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 as a person employed ‘under a contract personally to do any work’ establish that there is a dichotomy between independent providers of services who are not in a relationship of subordination with the person who receives the services and those who are in such a relationship and are within the scope of the Regulations. As was pointed out by Lord Clarke in Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] ICR 1004 these are broad questions which depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The Employment Judge in this case did not err in failing to consider whether the Claimant was in a relationship of subordination to the Respondent as a separate issue from all the factors she took into account in determining that he was an employee within the meaning of the Regulations.
Both sets of Regulations were revoked, with transitional measures, by the Equality Act 2010 and the subject matter of those provisions included in that Act.
Perversity challenge to the determination that the Claimant was an employee also failed.
Appeal dismissed.
Slade J
[2013] UKEAT 0009 – 13 – 2607, [2013] UKEAT 0009 – 13 – KN – 2607
Bailii, Bailii
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.514175
