The applicant, an employee at a job centre was demoted because he had disclosed confidential information about possible contraventions of the race relations legislation. He complained of race discrimination, saying his disclosure was a protected act.
Held: This was not victimisation within section 2. The relevant question was whether the employers had treated the complainant less favourably than they would have treated someone in their employment who gave away confidential information whatever its kind. The claim failed, because the Manpower Services Commission would have treated in the same way any employee who gave away confidential information whatever its nature.
Slynn J
[1980] 3 All ER 334, [1980] 1 WLR 725, [1980] ICR 420
Race Relations Act 1976 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah CA 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination law. Brightman LJ said: ‘I think a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the duty was in all the circumstances to his detriment.’
Lord Justice . .
Cited by:
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
Cited – Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd CA 26-Feb-1988
An Asian member of the respondent association of taxi cab operators secretly recorded conversations with other members to gather evidence for a claim under the Act. He was expelled from the association for this conduct. He alleged race . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.181287