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: 1996 To: 1996
This page lists 46 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Jepson v Labour Party [1996] IRLR 116
1996
Discrimination
The respondent was found guilty of sex discrimination in its failure to select the claimant as a parliamentary candidate.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
1 Citers
Brooks v Charleroi International Ltd ET3100350/96
1996
Discrimination, Damages
1 Citers
Smyth v Croft Inns Ltd [1996] IRLR 84
1996
Sir Brian Hutton LCJ
Employment, Discrimination
A barman in a public house with Protestant customers in a 'loyalist' area of Belfast was constructively dismissed because he was a Roman Catholic. Held: That was discrimination 'on the ground of religious belief' within the section. The employer's conduct did not cease to be discrimination on that ground because the employer would have treated in the same way a Protestant barman in a public house with Roman Catholic customers. That showed only that the employer would be guilty of religious discrimination against both barmen.
Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 16
1 Citers
Nwidobie v Blackpool and Fylde College and Another; EAT 15-Jan-1996 - [1996] UKEAT 1256_94_1501
Barry v Midland Bank Plc [1996] UKEAT 817_95_0202
2 Feb 1996
EAT
Discrimination
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Rees v Apollo Watch Repairs Plc Times, 26 February 1996; [1996] UKEAT 23_93_0502
5 Feb 1996
EAT
Discrimination, Employment
Dismissal of employee after a maternity replacement worker was found to be more efficient was discriminatory
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
[ Bailii ]
Kuratorium fur Dialyse und Nierentransplantation v Lewark C-457/93; [1996] ECR I-1243; [1996] EUECJ C-457/93
6 Feb 1996
ECJ
European, Discrimination
Europa The concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty comprises any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer, and irrespective of whether the worker receives it under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis. It includes compensation received for losses of earnings due to attendance at training courses imparting the information necessary for performing staff council functions. Although such compensation does not derive as such from the contract of employment, it nevertheless constitutes a benefit paid indirectly by the employer, since it is paid by virtue of legislative provisions and under a contract of employment. Where the category of part-time workers includes a much higher number of women than men, national legislation which, not being suitable and necessary for achieving a legitimate social policy aim, has the effect of limiting to their individual working hours the compensation which staff council members employed on a part-time basis are to receive from their employer for attending training courses which impart the knowledge necessary for serving on staff councils and are held during the full-time working hours applicable in the undertaking but which exceed their individual part-time working hours, when staff council members employed on a full-time basis receive compensation for attendance at the same courses on the basis of their full-time working hours, contravenes the prohibition of indirect discrimination in the matter of pay laid down by Article 119 of the Treaty and Directive 75/117 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gillespie and Others v Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others Times, 22 February 1996; [1996] ECR 1-475; C-342/93; [1996] ICR 499; [1996] EUECJ C-342/93
13 Feb 1996
ECJ
Discrimination, European, European
Benefits payable in maternity leave must make allowance for a pay increase which applied to other workers whilst employee on leave.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Donald Claudius D'Souza v Lambeth Borough Council [1996] EWCA Civ 502
3 Mar 1996
CA
Discrimination
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Smith v Safeway Plc Times, 05 March 1996; [1996] ICR 868
5 Mar 1996
CA
Phillips LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Leggatt LJ
Discrimination
The appellant, a male delicatessen assistant, was dismissed by his employers because his hair, which he wore in a ponytail style, breached the employers' rules for male staff, which stipulated tidy hair not below collar length and no unconventional hair styles. Held: He had not been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. A dress code requiring each respective sex to dress conventionally was not discriminatory. He had not been treated less favourably than female staff who were allowed to have their hair long.
Phillips LJ said: "Discrimination is defined as being treated less favourably. In my judgment, this is plainly the meaning of discrimination in the Directive and the Act of 1975 fully reflects that Directive. In many instances discrimination between the sexes will result in treating one more favourably than the other, but this will not necessarily be the case. If discrimination is to be established, it is necessary to show not merely that the sexes are treated differently, but that the treatment accorded to one is less favourable than the treatment accorded to the other . . As [counsel for the employers] has pointed out, a code which made identical provisions for men and women but which resulted in one or other having an unconventional appearance, would have an unfavourable impact on that sex being compelled to appear in an unconventional mode. Can there be any doubt that a code which required all employees to have 18-inch hair, earrings and lipstick, would treat men unfavourably by requiring them to adopt an appearance at odds with conventional standards? I put that question to [counsel for the applicant], and he accepted that such a requirement would operate unfavourably towards men. The reason for that is that the appropriate criterion to be applied when considering that question is: what is the conventional standard of appearance? Indeed, it seemed to me that [the applicant's counsel] implicitly conceded that when he submitted to us that what is discrimination can change as society changes. A code which applies conventional standards is one which, so far as the criterion of appearance is concerned, applies an even-handed approach between men and women and not one which is discriminatory."
Leggatt LJ said: "Discrimination consists, not in failing to treat men and women the same, but in treating those of one sex less favourably than those of the other. That is what is meant by treating them equally. If men and women were all required to wear lipstick, it would be men who would be discriminated against. Provided that an employer's rules, taken as a whole, do not result in men being treated less favourably than women, or vice versa, there is room for current conventions to operate."
Sex Discrimination Act 1975
1 Citers
Regina v Registrar General for England and Wales Ex Parte P; Same v Same Ex Parte G; QBD 27-Mar-1996 - Times, 27 March 1996; Independent, 22 February 1996
P v S and Cornwall County Council C-13/94; [1996] ICR 795; [1996] IRLR 347; [1996] EUECJ C-13/94
30 Apr 1996
ECJ
European, Employment, Discrimination
An employee at an educational establishment told management that he intended to undergo gender reassignment. He was given notice of dismissal. Held. The scope of the Directive was not confined to discrimination based on the fact that a person was of one or other sex but also extended to discrimination arising from the gender reassignment of a person. The Court stated: "Such discrimination is based, essentially if not exclusively, on the sex of the person concerned. Where a person is dismissed on the ground that he or she intends to undergo, or has undergone, gender reassignment, he or she is treated unfavourably by comparison with persons of the sex to which he or she was deemed to belong before undergoing gender reassignment. To tolerate such discrimination would be tantamount, as regards such a person, to a failure to respect the dignity and freedom to which he or she is entitled, and which the court has a duty to safeguard." The Advocate General described the applicant as female: "I do so regardless not only of her original sex (male) as it appears on her birth certificate but also of the moment at which, as a result of the final surgical operation, she actually changed her physical sex."
Council Directive 76/207/EEC
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v S and Another Times, 07 May 1996; C-13/94
7 May 1996
ECJ
Discrimination, European
A dismissal linked to a sex change was a breach of the sex discrimination Directive.
Council Directive 76/207/EEC Feb 9 1976
Cast v Croydon College [1996] UKEAT 161_95_0905
9 May 1996
EAT
Discrimination, Employment
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust; EAT 13-May-1996 - [1996] UKEAT 1259_95_1305
Bennett v Sergio Gambi and others; EAT 14-May-1996 - [1996] UKEAT 34_95_1405
Porter v Desklink Ltd (T/A Victoria Office Furniture) [1996] UKEAT 1327_95_1505
15 May 1996
EAT
Employment, Discrimination
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. Held. The tribunal in its reasons had not acknowledged that the claimant had made a separate allegation of race discrimination and had not dealt with them, and the tribunal remitted the case.
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 60A - Race Relations Act 1976
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others; HL 23-May-1996 - Times, 23 May 1996; Gazette, 12 September 1996; Gazette, 03 July 1996; [1996] ICR 515
O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School and Another [1996] IRLR 372; [1997] ICR 33; [1996] UKEAT 1180_94_2405
24 May 1996
EAT
Mummery J P
Employment, Discrimination
The claimant had been dismissed as a teacher by the respondent Roman Catholic school after she became pregnant by a priest. She had been found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal had rejected her claim of discrimination for pregnancy.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Secretary of State for Employment v Clark Times, 24 May 1996
24 May 1996
CA
Discrimination
Those on maternity leave properly excluded from payments in lieu of notice.
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 Sch 3 2(1)(b)
O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School; EAT 7-Jun-1996 - Gazette, 12 September 1996; Times, 07 June 1996; [1996] IRLR 372; [1996] UKEAT 1180_94_304; [1997] ICR 33
Diocese of Hallam's Trustee v Connaughton Times, 11 June 1996
11 Jun 1996
EAT
Discrimination
A comparison of equal wages can be based upon the level of payments to be made to a successor employee.
ECTreaty art 119
Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester [2001] ICR 863; [1996] UKEAT 484_95_2305; EAT/484/95
21 Jun 1996
EAT
Mummery J
Discrimination, Employment
The Industrial Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon the act or acts of which complaint is made to it. The questions on a complaint of race discrimination are: (a) Did the act complained of actually occur? (b) If the act complained of occurred in time, was there a difference in race involving the applicant? (c) If a difference in race was involved, was the applicant treated less favourably than the alleged discriminator treated or would treat other persons of a different racial group in the same, or not materially different, relevant circumstances? (d) If there was difference in treatment involving persons of a different race, was that treatment "on racial grounds"? Were racial grounds an effective cause of the difference in treatment? What explanation of the less favourable treatment is given by the respondent?
Mummery J said: "In the present case, it was necessary for the Tribunal to examine all the allegations made by Dr Qureshi of other incidents relied upon by him as evidentiary facts of race discrimination in the matters complained of. There is a tendency, however, where many evidentiary incidents or items are introduced, to be carried away by them and to treat each of the allegations, incidents or items as if they were themselves the subject of a complaint. In the present case it was necessary for the Tribunal to find the primary facts about those allegations. It was not, however, necessary for the Tribunal to ask itself, in relation to each such incident or item, whether it was itself explicable on "racial grounds" or on other grounds. That is a misapprehension about the nature and purpose of evidentiary facts. The function of the Tribunal is to find the primary facts from which they will be asked to draw inferences and then for the Tribunal to look at the totality of those facts (including the respondent's explanations) in order to see whether it is legitimate to infer that the acts or decisions complained of in the originating applications were on "racial grounds". The fragmented approach by the Tribunal in this case would inevitably have the effect of diminishing any eloquence that the cumulative effect of the primary facts might have on the issue of racial grounds. The process of inference is itself a matter of applying common sense and judgment to the facts, and assessing the probabilities on the issue whether racial grounds were an effective cause of the acts complained of or were not. The assessment of the parties and their witnesses when they give evidence also form an important part of the process of inference. The Tribunal may find the force of the primary facts is sufficient to justify an inference of racial grounds. It may find that any inference that it might have made is negated by a satisfactory explanation from the respondent of non-racial grounds of action or decision."
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Fletcher and others and Preston and others v Midland Bank Plc and Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust Secretary of State for Health and others EAT/6/96; EAT/5/96
24 Jun 1996
EAT
The Honourable Mr Justice Mummery
Employment, Discrimination
EAT Equal Pay Act -
EAT Equal Pay Act - (no sub-topic).
1 Citers
[ EATn ]
Regina v South Bank University ex parte Anyanwu; Admn 27-Jun-1996 - [1996] EWHC Admin 18
Ministry of Defence v Lowe and Others Times, 27 June 1996
27 Jun 1996
EAT
Discrimination
Damages payable for hurt feelings after abortion undertaken to prevent discharge.
Fletcher v Midland Bank Plc Times, 02 July 1996
2 Jul 1996
EAT
Discrimination
Part timers' claims for membership of pension schemes only made out of time.
Equal Pay Act 1970 1
Atkins v Wrekin District Council and Another; ECJ 11-Jul-1996 - Times, 02 August 1996; C-228/94; [1996] EUECJ C-228/94
Go Kidz Go Ltd v Bourdouane Unreported, 10 September 1996
10 Sep 1996
EAT
Discrimination
1 Citers
Caruana v Manchester Airport Plc; EAT 12-Sep-1996 - Gazette, 12 September 1996
Burton and Another v De Vere Hotels; EAT 3-Oct-1996 - Times, 03 October 1996; [1997] ICR 1; [1996] IRLR 596; Independent, 04 November 1996
Hereford and Worcester County Council and Others v Clayton Times, 08 October 1996
8 Oct 1996
EAT
Discrimination
A remark of it being 'bad news' to have a woman fire-fighter could found a claim for sex discrimination.
Farah v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis Gazette, 06 November 1996; Times, 10 October 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 684; [1998] QB 65
9 Oct 1996
CA
Discrimination, Torts - Other, Police
Individual officers, but not the police force itself are answerable in a race discrimination claim. The force is not vicariously liable for an individual officer's acts.
Race Relations Act 1976 20(g)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd [1996] UKEAT 812_96_1110
11 Oct 1996
EAT
Mummery LJ
Employment, Discrimination
A party sought to be joined to the case order to appeal it to the Curt of Appeal, and in turn to the European Court of Justice to challenge implementation of a European directive. Held: Leave to join refused, but leave allowed to appeal further.
Equal Pay Act 1970
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Manelfi [1996] EWHC Admin 153
25 Oct 1996
Admn
Employment, Discrimination
The applicant sought judicial review of the defendant's refusal to employ him to work at GCHQ, which had a policy not to employ anyone with non-British parents save exceptionally. The claimant said this was racially discriminatory. Held: The nationality rules and waiver policy are maintained to ensure in the interest of national security, the loyalty of those employed at GCHQ: "Consequently, this decision, the content of the rules and their application are not justiciable."
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 26 - Race Relations Act 1976 75(5)(a)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Barry v Midland Bank Plc; EAT 25-Oct-1996 - Times, 25 October 1996
Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd [1996] UKEAT 812_96_0611
6 Nov 1996
EAT
Mummery LJ
Employment, Discrimination
Equal Pay Act 1970
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Swiggs v Nagarajan, London Underground Limited v Nagarajan [1996] EWCA Civ 928
11 Nov 1996
CA
Discrimination
Leave to appeal granted.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Post Office v Adekeye; CA 13-Nov-1996 - Times, 03 December 1996; Gazette, 13 December 1996; [1997] ICR 110; [1996] EWCA Civ 943
Berry v the Bethlem and Maudsley NHS Trust [1996] UKEAT 478_95_2111
21 Nov 1996
EAT
Employment, Discrimination
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Rovenska v General Medical Council Times, 31 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1096; [1997] IRLR 367; [1998] ICR 85
4 Dec 1996
CA
Brooke LJ, Nourse, Roch LJJ
Discrimination, Health Professions
A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical practitioner in this country for doctors with overseas qualifications, to exempt her from its requirement of passing a test of proficiency in English. Held: The appeal failed. The GMC's rules when being tested as discriminatory gave a new complaint on each occasion on which they were used. The most recent refusal, which was in response to a letter on the complainant's behalf from a local Council for Racial Equality, was within time.
Brooke LJ acknowledged that a complainant of discrimination in the field of employment may establish jurisdiction by relying simply on the existence of a policy as a continuing act of discrimination regardless of its most recent application to him: "It was an important part of . . [the GMC's] case that the Employment Appeal Tribunal failed to take into account the fact that the cases on which it relied were all decided in relation to s. 4 of the 1976 Act or s.6 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. . . In those cases the discriminatory act complained of is not a one-off act of refusal; it arises out of the way in which the employer affords his or her employees access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services, or out of the employer refusing or deliberately omitting to afford the employees access to them. In these circumstances, the courts have held that if an employer adopts a policy which means that a black employee or female employee is inevitably barred from access to valuable benefits, this is a continuing act of discrimination against employers who fall into these categories until the offending policy is abrogated." and
"In my judgment, it is not necessary to resolve the question of the proper interpretation of s. 12(1)(a) of the Act in the present case. If the regime which the GMC had selected for its exemptions policy was inherently discriminatory . . then on every occasion that it refused to allow her limited registration without first taking the . . test it would be committing an act of unlawful discrimination contrary to s. 12(1)(b) of the Act. I do not regard the letter from the Greenwich Racial Equality Council as being akin to a solicitor's letter in these circumstances. It was inviting the GMC to grant Dr Rovenska an exemption, and there were three new features of this application compared with the letter Dr Rovenska had written in December. It advanced a new (bad) argument based on her acquisition of the new Master's degree; it forwarded a new up-to-date reference; and it expressly asked for an exemption. The GMC refused this application, and Dr Rovenska's application was made within three months of that refusal."
Race Relations Act 1976 68
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Zuchner v Handelskrankenkasse (Ersatzkasse) Bremen Times, 09 December 1996; C-77/95; [1996] EUECJ C-77/95
9 Dec 1996
ECJ
Discrimination, European
A wife caring for her paraplegic husband is not in that capacity 'a worker' sufficient to be protected from sex discrimination.
European Communities Treaty 177
[ Bailii ]
Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones; CA 11-Dec-1996 - Times, 16 December 1996; [1996] EWCA Civ 1185; [1997] ICR 254; [1997] IRLR 168; [1997] 2 All ER 406,
Kanekanian v Cardiff Institute of Higher Education and Another [1996] UKEAT 46_96_1712
17 Dec 1996
EAT
Lindsay J
Employment, Discrimination
[ Bailii ]
Mensah v Royal College of Midwives; EAT 17-Dec-1996 - [1996] UKEAT 124_94_1712
Johnson v HM Prison Service and Others; EAT 31-Dec-1996 - Times, 31 December 1996; [1997] IRLR 162; [1997] ICR 275
