EAT Unfair Dismissal – SEXUAL ORIENTATION – DISCRIMINATION / TRANSEXUALISM – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
The claimant made claims of unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act (ERA) section 94(1), sexual orientation discrimination under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and automatic unfair dismissal in respect of protected disclosures under section 103A of ERA. The respondents argued that the Employment Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction, as the claimant’s employment did not have sufficient connection to the UK. They argued that the claimant was a US citizen, employed by a US company and paid in US dollars. While he travelled extensively for his work he undertook an international assignment which involved his working in London for about half of his time and living in accommodation rented for him by the respondent.
The Employment Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction. The appellant argued that it had erred in law by so finding.
Held: there was no error of law by the Employment Tribunal. In light of the factual findings made by the Employment Tribunal, which it was entitled to make, it applied the law to those findings correctly. Appeal dismissed.
Lady Stacey
[2014] UKEAT 0464 – 13 – 0409
Bailii
Equality Act 2010
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536441