Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Discrimination - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Holister v National Farmers Union [1970] ICR 542
1970


Discrimination

1 Citers


 
Griggs v Duke Power Company (1971) 401 US 424
1971


International, Discrimination
(US) The court examined the arguments relating to indirect discrimination.
1 Citers


 
Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State C-80/70; R-80/70; [1971] EUECJ R-80/70; [1974] 1 CMLR 494; [1971] ECR 445
25 May 1971
ECJ

European, Discrimination, Benefits
ECJ The concept of pay as defined in article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not include social security schemes or benefits directly governed by legislation without any element of agreement within the undertaking or the occupational branch concerned, which are obligatorily applicable to general categories of workers or which, within the framework of such a general system established by legislation, relate to certain categories of workers in particular.
This applies especially to retirement pension schemes which give workers the benefit of a legal system, the financing of which, workers, employers and possibly the public authorities contribute in a measure determined less by the employment relationship between the employer and the worker than by considerations of social policy. The part due from the employer in the financing of such schemes does not constitute a direct or indirect payment to the worker; the latter receives the benefits legally prescribed solely by reason of the fact that he fulfils the legal conditions required for their being granted.
Situations involving discrimination resulting from the application of such a scheme are not subject to the requirements of article 119.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1971] UKHL 3; [1972] AC 342; [1972] 2 WLR 71
16 Dec 1971
HL
Lord Donovan, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon
Housing, Discrimination
The council operated a housing policy which required applicants for housing tbe British nationals. Mr Zesko, a Polish national, complained that this was race discrimination. Held: The House declined to interpret "national origins" in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1968 so as to include "nationality": discriminating against the non-British was allowed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale observed: " . . I think that considerable caution is needed in construing a general statutory provision by reference to its statutory exceptions. 'Saving clauses' are often included by way of reassurance, for avoidance of doubt or from abundance of caution."
Lord Cross said: "There is no definition of national origin in the Act and one must interpret the phrase as best one can. To me it suggests a connection subsisting at the time of birth between an individual and one or more groups of people who can be described as 'a nation' - whether or not that constitutes a sovereign state. The connection will normally arise because the parents or one of the parents of the individual in question are or is identified by descent with the nation in question; but it may also sometimes arise because the parents have made their home among the people in question."
Race should be understood in the popular sense rather than an anthropological or biological sens
Race Relations Act 1968 1(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Race Relations Board v Applin [1973] 1 QB 815
1973
CA
Lord Denning MR
Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Charter v Race Relations Board; HL 1973 - [1973] AC 868
 
Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323; [1974] IRLR 213
1974
CA
Cairns LJ, Lord Denning MR
Employment, Discrimination
A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be a set of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee.
Lord Cairns said: "A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, that is no doubt evidence, at any rate as against him, as to the real reason, but it does not necessarily constitute the real reason. He may knowingly give a reason different from the real reason out of kindness."
1 Citers


 
Applin v Race Relations Board [1974] UKHL 3; [1975] AC 259; [1974] 2 All ER 73
27 Mar 1974
HL
Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon
Discrimination
A couple cared for children without fee who were referred to them by a local authority. The children they cared for included coloured children. Two individuals sought to prevent the couple caring for coloured children. The question for the House of Lords was whether the attempt by the individuals to prevent the couple so doing was a breach of the Race Relations Act 1968, whether, in caring for the children in their home without fee, the couple were "concerned with the provision to. . a section of the public . . goods, facilities or services". Held: (Majority - Lord Wilbeforce dissenting) Even though the couple might be seen as providing goods, facilities and services, within their home, the Act would not regard the members of the household itself as a “section of the public”. The private household was beyond the reach of the Act. What made their household different, and brought it within the reach of the Act, was the public nature of the service they offered the children. The children were referred to them by a public authority. They might care for as many as fifty children each year. Their Lordships noted that the Act did not lay down a line of separation between the public and private sphere and that the facts of the case made it difficult to tell.
Race Relations Act 1968 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo C-36/74; R-36/74; [1974] EUECJ R-36/74; [1974] ECR 1405
12 Dec 1974
ECJ

European, Discrimination
ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in the sphere of economic activities which have the character of gainful employment or remunerated service covers all work or services without regard to the exact nature of the legal relationship under which such activities are performed. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality does not affect the composition of sport teams, in particular national teams, the formation of which is a question of purely sporting interest and as such has nothing to do with economic activity. Prohibition of discrimination does not only apply to the action of public authorities but extends likewise to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating in a collective manner gainful employment and the provision of services. The rule on non-discrimination applies to all legal relationships which can be located within the territory of the community by reason either of the place where they are entered into or of the place where they take effect. The first paragraph of article 59, in any event in so far as it refers to the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality, creates individual rights which national courts must protect.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia; 1976 - (1976) 438 US 285
 
Sorbie v Trust House Forte Hotels [1976] IRLR 371
1976
EAT
Phillips J
Employment, Discrimination
Phillips J considered an alteration to the terms of an employment contract, saying: "One then goes on to see what the effect as prescribed is, and it is that that term, so identified, in the appellants' contracts shall be treated, as so modified, as not to be less favourable. It seems to us that the way it is treated, as so modified, as to strike out 85p and to substitute 97 1/2p . . In other words, once the section is applied and the contract is modified, there is then a contract providing remuneration at that rate. It seems to us that the true way of looking at it is that that contract remains so modified until something else happens, such as a further agreement between the parties, a further collective agreement, or a further statutory modification by reason of a further operation of the equality clause."
A claim for equal pay is a claim in respect of breach of contract.
1 Citers



 
 Defrenne v Sabena (No 2); ECJ 8-Apr-1976 - C-43/75; [1976] ICR 547; [1976] ICR 547; [1981] 1 All ER 122; R-43/75; [1976] EUECJ R-43/75; [1976] ECR 455; [1976] EUECJ C-43/75

 
 Capper Pass Ltd v Lawton; EAT 19-Oct-1976 - [1976] UKEAT 346_76_1076; [1977] 2 WLR 26; [1977] QB 852; [1976] IRLR 366; (1976) 11 ITR 316; [1977] 2 All ER 11
 
Dugdale v Kraft Foods Ltd [1976] UKEAT 277_76_1076; [1976] 1 WLR 1288; (1979) 11 ITR 309; [1977] 1 All ER 454; [1977] IRLR 160
28 Oct 1976
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Ainsworth v Glass Tubes Components Ltd [1977] ICR 347
1977
EAT

Discrimination
In an equal pay claim, it is for the applicant to choose the man with whom she wishes to compare herself.
1 Citers



 
 Amies v Inner London Education Authority; EAT 1977 - [1977] ICR 308
 
Schmidt v Austick's Bookshops [1977] IRLR 360; (1978) ICR 85
1977
EAT
Phillips J
Discrimination
The bookshop company's employment rules prohibited trousers for female workers, a dress code which was upheld by the Tribunal. Held. There was no detriment. As there was no comparable restriction for men it was not possible to say that women were treated less favourably than men. Phillips J said: "if one considers the situation of the men and the situation of the women there was no comparable restriction which could be applied to the men, equivalent to that applied to the women preventing them from wearing trousers, which could make it possible to lead to the conclusion that the women were being treated less favourably than the men."
1 Citers


 
Peake v Automotive Products Ltd [1977] UKEAT 443_76_1702
17 Feb 1977
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Macarthys Ltd Unreported, 14 December 1977
14 Dec 1977
EAT

Discrimination, Employment
Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of £50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after an interval of four months, received a salary of £60 per week. She brought proceedings before the industrial tribunal on the basis of the 1970 Act. The tribunal held that the applicant was employed on like work with her predecessor and ordered Macarthys to pay the applicant a salary equal to his salary. Held: The employer's appeal was dismissed.
Equal Pay Act 1970 - Council Directive 75/117/EEC
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Zarcynska v Levy [1978] IRLR 532
1978
EAT
Kilner Brown J
Discrimination

Race Relations Act 1976
1 Citers


 
Defrenne v Sabena Airlines [1979] ECR 1365; C-149/77; R-149/77; [1978] EUECJ R-149/77
15 Jun 1978
ECJ

European, Employment, Discrimination
LMA Ms Defrenne was an air hostess employed by SABENA, a Belgian airline company. She brought an action against the airline based on Art.119 [now141] EC. Ms Defrenne claimed that in paying their male stewards more than their air hostesses, when they performed identical tasks, Sabena were in breach of Art.119EC. The question to the ECJ was whether, and in what context, Art.199EC was directly effective. The ECJ held "the prohibition on discrimination between men and women applies not only to the action of public authorities but also extends to all agreements which are intended to regulate paid labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals"
Europa Article 119 of the EEC Treaty, which is limited to the question of pay discrimination between men and women workers, constitutes a special rule, whose application is linked to precise factors. It cannot be interpreted as prescribing, in addition to equal pay, equality in respect of the other working conditions applicable to men and women. The fact that the fixing of certain conditions of employment - such as a special age-limit - may have pecuniary consequences is not sufficient to bring such conditions within the field of application of article 119, which is based on the close connection which exists between the nature of the services provided and the amount of remuneration.
Fundamental personal human rights form part of the general principles of community law, the observance of which the court has a duty to ensure. The elimination of discrimination based on sex forms part of those fundamental rights. However, it is not for the court to enforce the observance of that rule of non-discrimination in respect of relationships between employer and employee which are a matter exclusively for national law.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Zarczynska v Levy [1979] ICR 184; [1978] IRLR 532
1979


Discrimination, Employment
A white barmaid was dismissed for refusing to turn away black customers. She claimed in race discrimination. Held: Treating people less favourably not because of their race but because of the race of others is also discrimination on grounds of race. The black customers were not in fact treated less favourably, as the white employee refused to carry out the unlawful order to treat them less favourably. It was the white employee who was treated less favourably "on racial grounds" because he was dismissed for refusing to carry out his employer's racially discriminatory policy or practice to discriminate against others on racial grounds.
1 Citers



 
 Science Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias; HL 1-Nov-1979 - [1979] ICR 921; [1979] 3 All ER 673; [1980] AC 1028; [1979] 3 WLR 762; [1979] UKHL 9
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.