Race Discrimination – Direct. After dealing with the arguments based on the history of the various statutes: ‘Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts as to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of employment by the employee. Why should Parliament be taken to have distinguished between these two situations?’
Constructive dismissal came within the term ‘dismissal’, as used in section 4(2)(c). There was no reason to give the word ‘dismissal’ a narrow meaning so as to exclude constructive dismissal: ‘We can see some force in the reasoning in Harrold, but in the end we are not persuaded by it. There may be a number of reasons why Parliament chose to make an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, not least its wish to ensure that there could [be] no doubt whatsoever about the Act’s compliance with Community law, as the judgment in Harrold indicates. It cannot be taken as an indication by Parliament that, in other legislation with which it was not dealing, ‘dismissal’ was to be given a restricted meaning. We emphasis that because, if one approaches the meaning of ‘dismissal’ in the Race Relations Act without that extraneous influence, there is no reason why it should be so construed as to exclude constructive dismissal. Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of employment by the employee. Why should Parliament be taken to have distinguished between these two situations?’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Keene
Citations:
EAT/1139/99, EAT/817/99, [2001] ICR 833, [2001] IRLR 69, [2000] UKEAT 817 – 99 – 2809, [2001] 2 All ER 840
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – 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 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.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171915
