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: 1998 To: 1998

This page lists 88 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Marks and Spencer Plc v Martins [1998] ICR 1005
1998

Mummery LJ
Discrimination
The court considered how a claimant can establish a claim for race discrimination. Mummery LJ said: "The first part of the question is: "Was the applicant treated less favourably than they treated or would treat another person of a different racial group in the same or relevantly similar circumstances? The answer requires a comparison to be made between the treatment of the applicant and the treatment of a 27 year old applicant of a different racial group with similar experience and qualifications applying for the same job. The tribunal did not attempt to make the compulsory comparison. Instead, it simply asked itself whether there was ‘bias' on the part of Mrs Cherrie and Mr Walters against the applicant and concluded that there was. This approach is defective."
Race Relations Act 1976
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sidhar v Gubb and Hauff Precision Engineering [1998] EWCA Civ 13
13 Jan 1998
CA

Discrimination, Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Ayobiojo v Nalgo-Unison Trade Union [1998] UKEAT 1264_96_1601
16 Jan 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited; CA 20-Jan-1998 - Gazette, 18 March 1998; Times, 05 March 1998; Gazette, 16 April 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 43; [1998] ICR 848

 
 Strathclyde Regional Council and others v Wallace and others (Scotland); HL 22-Jan-1998 - Times, 24 January 1998; Gazette, 18 February 1998; [1998] 1 WLR 259; [1998] ICR 205; [1998] UKHL 4; [1998] 1 All ER 394; [1998] IRLR 146
 
Khamta Colbert Naraine v Hoverspeed Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 147
4 Feb 1998
CA

Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Lyn Jones v Borough Council of Calderdale [1998] EWCA Civ 162
5 Feb 1998
CA

Employment, Discrimination

Industrial Tribunal's Regulations of 1993 7
[ Bailii ]
 
Olubukunola Obasa v London Borough of Islington [1998] EWCA Civ 251
16 Feb 1998
CA

Discrimination

Race Relations Act 1976 1(4)(a) 4(2)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Grant v South West Trains Ltd Times, 23 February 1998; Gazette, 24 June 1998; [1998] IRLR 188; C-249/96; [1998] ICR 449; [1998] 3 BHRC 578; [1998] EUECJ C-249/96
17 Feb 1998
ECJ

Discrimination, European
A company's ban on the provision of travel perks to same sex partners of employees did not constitute breach of European sex discrimination law. An employer's policy was not necessarily to be incorporated into the contract of employment. The court said that since the rule applied equally to male and female employees it was not discriminatory on grounds of "sex" narrowly understood. The Court then considered whether "persons who have a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex are in the same situation as those who are married or have a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex". The European Parliament, although deploring all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, had not yet introduced measures to support that view; and that the laws of the member states only gave limited protection to such a relationship. So far as the European Commission on Human Rights was concerned, national provisions which, for the purpose of protecting the family, accord more favourable treatment to married persons and persons of the opposite sex living together as man and wife than to persons of the same sex in a stable relationship are not contrary to article 14 of the Convention which prohibits, inter alia, discrimination on the ground of sex. Stable relationships between two persons of the same sex are not regarded as equivalent to marriages and stable relationships outside marriage between persons of opposite sex. Consequently, an employer is not required by Community law to treat the situation of a person who has a stable relationship with a partner of the same sex as equivalent to that of a person who is married to or has a stable relationship outside marriage with a partner of the opposite sex.
Council Directive 75/117/EEC - EC Treaty 119
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Matadeen and others v M G C Pointu and others (Mauritius) [1998] UKPC 9; [1999] 1 AC 98; [1998] 3 WLR 18
18 Feb 1998
PC
Lord Hoffmann
Commonwealth, Constitutional, Discrimination
It is a well recognised canon of construction that domestic legislation, including the Constitution, should if possible be construed so as to conform to international instruments to which the state is party. Lord Hoffmann said: "of course persons should be uniformly treated unless there is some valid reason to treat them differently . . The reasons for not treating people uniformly often involve . . questions of social policy" and "treating like cases alike, and unlike cases differently is a general axiom of rational behaviour." and "Is it of the essence of democracy that there should be a general justiciable principle of equality? . . Their Lordships do not doubt that such a principle is one of the building blocks of democracy and necessarily permeates any democratic constitution. Indeed, their Lordships would go further and say that treating like cases alike and unlike cases differently is a general axiom of rational behaviour. It is, for example, frequently invoked by the courts in proceedings for judicial review as a ground for holding some administrative act to have been irrational."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Golden v Law Society of England and Wales [1998] UKEAT 1289_97_1802
18 Feb 1998
EAT
Kirkwood J
Discrimination, Employment

[ Bailii ]
 
Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc [1998] UKEAT 1297_98_1902; [1999] IRLR 680
19 Feb 1998
EAT
Morison P
Employment, Discrimination
A medical report in a disability discrimination claim should deal with the doctor’s diagnosis of the impairments, the doctor’s observation of the applicant carrying out day to day activities and the ease with which he was able to perform those functions, together with any relevant opinion as to prognosis and the effect of medication. Morison P said: "The fact that the medical adviser had been told on some disability discrimination course or seminar that something was or was not a normal day-to-day activity is not of relevance to the tribunal's determination. It is not for a doctor to express an opinion as to what is a normal day-to-day activity. That is a matter for them to consider using their basic common sense. Equally, it was not for the expert to tell the tribunal whether the impairments which had been found proved were or were not substantial. Again that was a matter for the employment tribunal to arrive at its own assessment. What, of course, a medical expert was entitled to do was to put forward her own observations of the applicant carrying out day-to-day activities and to comment on the case or otherwise with which she was performing those functions. She obviously also was entitled to give any prognosis that might be relevant and to give an opinion as to the position about the effect of medication."
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc [1998] UKEAT 311_98_2002
20 Feb 1998
EAT
Morison P J
Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc; HL 26-Feb-1998 - Times, 09 February 1998; Gazette, 26 February 1998; [1998] UKHL 6; [1998] 1 All ER 528; [1998] 1 WLR 280; [1998] ICR 227
 
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Vasthiampili Joseph Jesuthasan Times, 05 March 1998; Gazette, 18 March 1998; Gazette, 16 April 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 356
26 Feb 1998
CA

Discrimination, Employment
A male part time worker in the public sector was entitled to the same protection as a female part time worker, and could amend his pleadings accordingly to allow for a decision reflecting a new understanding of EU Law.
Employment Protection (Part-Time Employees) Regulations 1995 (1995 No 3)
[ Bailii ]
 
Weatherfield Ltd v Sargent Gazette, 26 February 1998; (1998) IRLR 14
26 Feb 1998
EAT

Discrimination
A dismissal after an employee's refusal to follow an order to racially discriminate was itself racial discrimination.
Race Relations Act 1976


 
 Bossa v Nordstress Ltd; EAT 13-Mar-1998 - Times, 13 March 1998
 
Y Shipman v B and Q Plc EAT/593/97
16 Mar 1998
EAT
The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P)
Discrimination
EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct
[ EATn ]
 
Berry v Bethlem and Maudsley NHS Trust [1998] UKEAT 180_98_1703
17 Mar 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Jackie Cast v Croydon College Times, 26 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 499; [1998] EWCA Civ 498; [1998] ICR 500
19 Mar 1998
CA
Auld LJ, Walker LK, Otton LJ
Discrimination
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it. In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs from the date of the employer's breach and not from the date of the employee's resignation, and "the Industrial Tribunal, having found that the College reconsidered and looked at the matter again in 1993, erred in law in failing to consider the implications of that finding for the purpose of the running of time. It is true that the best that Mrs Cast could have achieved on this approach was a determination that the final refusal occurred on 10th May 1993. That was still outside the three months time limit, but only by three days, a trivial over-run when compared with that of thirteen and a half months if the refusal on 26th March 1992 were the only potential act of discrimination, and thus material to the exercise by the tribunal of its discretion whether to extend the time limit."
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 76(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Soormally v Department of Social Security (Benefit Agency) [1998] UKEAT 125_98_2003
20 Mar 1998
EAT
Morison P J
Employment, Discrimination
Appeal against rejection of claims of race discrimination in non-selection for promotion and as to reports about him.
[ Bailii ]
 
Petrovic v Austria 20458/92; [2001] 33 EHRR 14; (2001) 33 EHRR 307; [1998] ECHR 21; (1998) 33 EHHR 307; [1998] ECHR 21
27 Mar 1998
ECHR

Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8. Held: The application was dismissed. the court noted that, as society moved towards a more equal sharing of responsibilities for the upbringing of children, contracting states have extended allowances such as parental leave to fathers. Austrian law had evolved in this way, eligibility for parental leave allowance being extended to fathers in 1990. The Austrian legislature was not to be criticised for having introduced progressive legislation in a gradual manner. For article 14 to be applicable, the facts at issue must 'fall within the ambit' of one or more of the Convention rights. "The Court has said on many occasions that Article 14 comes into play whenever the subject matter of the disadvantage 'constitutes one of the modalities' of the exercise of a right guaranteed or whenever the measures complained of are 'linked' to the exercise of a right guaranteed."
European Convention on Human Rights 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
A v B [1998] UKEAT 289_98_3103
31 Mar 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The employer appealed against a finding of sex discrimination in the form of sexual harassment.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 41(3)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v University of Greenwich ex parte Philton Moore [1998] EWCA Civ 609
2 Apr 1998
CA

Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Harrold v Wiltshire Healthcare NHS Trust [1998] UKEAT 236_98_0604
6 Apr 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ayobiojo v London Borough of Lewisham [1998] UKEAT 346_97_2104
21 Apr 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust and Another v Effa [1998] UKEAT 565_97_2104
21 Apr 1998
EAT
Peter Clark J
Employment, Discrimination
The Trust appealed against a finding of race discrimination. He was a doctor working as a locum. He had been summarily dismissed in breach of the respondent's own procedures and professional standards. Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had erred in that it had made the assumption, for which there was no factual basis, that a hypothetical white comparator would have been treated differently. There was no warrant for making such an assumption, or for inferring that a comparable white doctor would have been treated any differently. Unreasonable treatment does not, without more, become discrimination merely because the person effected by it is from an ethnic minority.
Race Relations Act 1976 7
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Graham v London Borough of Barnet EAT/221/99
23 Apr 1998
EAT
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
Discrimination
EAT Race Discrimination - Direct
[ EAT ]
 
Regina v Nursing and Midwifery Staff Negotiating Council ex parte Mensah [1998] EWHC Admin 451
27 Apr 1998
Admn

Discrimination, Employment

Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
De Vriendt and others v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and others C-377/96; [1998] EUECJ C-377/96
30 Apr 1998
ECJ

Benefits, Discrimination
ECJ (Judgment) Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment - Old-age and retirement pensions - Method of calculation - Pensionable age
Directive 79/7/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
De Vriendt v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen C-384/96; [1998] EUECJ C-384/96
30 Apr 1998
ECJ

Discrimination
ECJ (Social Policy) Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment - Old-age and retirement pensions - Method of calculation - Pensionable age.
Directive 79/7/EEC
[ Bailii ]
 
Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others [1998] UKEAT 1111_97_0105
1 May 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sivanandan v London Borough of Enfield [1998] UKEAT 450_98_0105
1 May 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Morse v Wiltshire County Council; EAT 1-May-1998 - Times, 11 May 1998; [1998] UKEAT 1279_97_0105; [1998] ICR 1023
 
Ciasse Nationale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salries v Thibault Times, 13 May 1998
13 May 1998
ECJ

Discrimination, European
Rules which precluded an employee who was absent for maternity reasons from taking part in performance assessments affecting future promotion rights were breach of Council Directive.
Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment Art 2(3) Art 5(1)

 
Whitley and Another v Thompson [1998] UKEAT 1169_97_1405
14 May 1998
EAT
Lindsay J
Employment, Discrimination
The claimants appealed against dismissal of their allegations of sexual harassment. The tribunal had found against them on the facts.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ayobiojo v Nalgo/Unison Trade Union [1998] EWCA Civ 858
20 May 1998
CA

Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Divine-Borley v Brent London Borough Council Times, 20 May 1998; Gazette, 03 June 1998; Gazette, 30 September 1998; (1998) IRLR 525
20 May 1998
CA

Employment, Employment, Discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal had been wrong to allow an employee to add a claim for damages for racial discrimination, where the issues were those already decided at the tribunal. It was important to bring all claims together.


 
 London Underground Limited v Edwards (2); CA 21-May-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 877; [1999] ICR 494

 
 London Underground Limited v Edwards; CA 21-May-1998 - Times, 01 June 1998; Gazette, 24 June 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 876; (1998) IRLR 364

 
 Bryant v Housing Corporation; CA 21-May-1998 - Times, 01 June 1998; Gazette, 01 July 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 866; [1999] ICR 836
 
O'Shea Construction Ltd v Bassi [1998] UKEAT 1366_97_2105; [1998] ICR 1130
21 May 1998
EAT
Lindsay J
Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Novacold Ltd Times, 11 June 1998; [1999] IRLR 420
22 May 1998
EAT
Morison P J
Employment, Discrimination
The employee appealed against the dismissal of his claim for disability discrimination. Held. The appeal succeeded. A comparator for the treatment of a disabled person who was away from work sick, was the treatment of a non-disabled person who had been absent for a similar period but for a non-disablement reason. (1) On the construction of section 5(1) the tribunal had correctly approached the identity of the comparator as a person who is unable to fulfil all the requirements of his job, but whose inability is not related to disability as defined by the 1995 Act. The Appeal Tribunal, like the Industrial Tribunal, rejected the contention that the comparator is a person who is able to fulfil all the requirements of his job. However, it was not apparent from the decision what characteristics the Industrial Tribunal assumed the hypothetical comparator to have. It should be asked to deal expressly with that point and the case was remitted for that purpose.
(2) The Industrial Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the duty of adjustment in Section 6 had no application to a case where an employee was complaining of dismissal. The Tribunal was not given the assistance it needed on this point. Mr Clark's case should have been based on a breach by Novacold of their duty to make adjustments to accommodate him within their employment eg by altering his hours of work, allocating some of his duties to others or providing supervision before dismissing him. Those are matters which form part of the arrangements on which Novacold afforded employment to him. The Industrial Tribunal had erred in law in not treating these as additional rights under section 5(2) and section 6, which were not contingent on Mr Clark succeeding in his discrimination claim under section 5(1). The matter should be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether there was discrimination under Section 5(2), in particular having regard to the relevant provisions of the Code of Practice.
(3) Although the issue of justification did not arise for decision on the appeal, there did not appear to be any ground on which the tribunal's factual decision on that point could be faulted. The EAT directed that the case be remitted for re-hearing to the Industrial Tribunal.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
1 Citers


 
O'Neill v Symm and Co Ltd Gazette, 08 July 1998; Gazette, 10 June 1998; Times, 12 March 1998; [1998] IRLR 233
10 Jun 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
An employer dismissing an employee for sickness absences, and who was unaware that the sickness had come to be a disability, did not discriminate under the Act. The reason for the dismissal was to be looked for in the mind of the employer.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(2) 5(1)(a)
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust; CA 10-Jun-1998 - Gazette, 30 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 954; [1998] IRLR 531
 
Clark v Novacold Ltd [1998] UKEAT 1284_97_1707
11 Jun 1998
EAT
Morison P J
Employment, Discrimination
The EAT heard arguments as to whether its decision to remit the case to the Industrial Tribunal was correct. Held: The matter should be stayed pending the hearing of the matter at the Court of Appeal.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Lisa Jacqueline Grant v South West Trains Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1002; (1998) ICR 449
15 Jun 1998
CA
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith Sir Christopher Staughton
Employment, Discrimination
Renewed application for leave to appeal from Industrial Tribunal. The claimant sought equal treatment in respect of her homosexual partner for free or discretionary travel concessions.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hill and Stapleton v The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance Gazette, 09 September 1998; C-243/95; Ecj/Cfi Bulletin, 9; [1998] IRLR 466; [1998] EUECJ C-243/95
17 Jun 1998
ECJ

Discrimination, European, European
Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they switched to full-time employment but their position on the incremental pay scale was adjusted in accordance with an instruction that each year’s job-sharing service was only reckonable as six months full-time service. The issue for the ECJ was whether the principle of finally equal pay was contravened, if employees who convert from job-sharing to full-time work regress on the incremental scale, and hence on their salary scale due to the application by the employer of the criteria of service calculated by time worked in a job and, if so, did the employer have to provide special set of classification for re-course to the criterion of service to find his actual time worked in awarding incremental credit. Held: Treatment of job sharers as having acquired seniority of half that of time served (having worked half time) was discriminatory. 98% of job sharing civil servant employees were women. Otherwise only if difference based on objective non-sex related factors.
Council Directive 75/117/EEC Equal Pay Directive
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wright v British Telecommunications Plc [1998] EWCA Civ 1066
22 Jun 1998
CA

Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Mensah v Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust [1998] EWCA Civ 1070
23 Jun 1998
CA

Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Brown v Rentokil Ltd; ECJ 30-Jun-1998 - Times, 02 July 1998; Gazette, 09 September 1998; [1998] IRLR 445; C-394/96; ECJ/CFI Bulletin 18/98, 1; [1998] EUECJ C-394/96; [1998] ECR I-4185; [1998] ICR 790; [1998] Fam Law 597; [1999] 1 FCR 49; [1998] 2 FLR 649; [1998] 2 CMLR 1049; [1998] CEC 829
 
Hill and Another v Revenue Commissioners and Another Times, 02 July 1998; C-243/95
2 Jul 1998
ECJ

Discrimination, European
Rule under which job-share employees lost out on pay rates when converted into full time equivalents were discriminatory against women since more women had job-share arrangements
ECTreaty 119 Council Directive 75/117/EEC


 
 Smith v Gardner Merchant Ltd; CA 14-Jul-1998 - Times, 23 July 1998; Gazette, 26 August 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1207; [1999] ICR 134; [1998] IRLR 510
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Defence ex parte Perkins Times, 16 July 1998; Gazette, 03 September 1998; [1998] EWHC Admin 746
16 Jul 1998
Admn

Discrimination, Armed Forces
The ECJ ruling that discrimination against same sex couples did not constitute sex discrimination under the Equal Pay Directive was also effective to decide that the Armed Forces rules against employment of homosexuals was not discrimination.
Council Directive 75/117/EEC (Equal Treatment) Council Directive 76/297/EEC Equal Treatment
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; EAT 22-Jul-1998 - [1998] UKEAT 360_96_2207
 
Clint Alexander v Northampton Borough Council [1998] EWCA Civ 1323
29 Jul 1998
CA

Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Basil Brown v Eric Nash, Hon Secretary Chairman and Committee Members of Cambridgeshire Harriers Athletics Club [1998] EWCA Civ 1322
29 Jul 1998
CA

Discrimination, Litigation Practice
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused - long delay - additional evidence available at trial.
Race Relations Act 1976
[ Bailii ]

 
 Kelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Loughran v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; HL 29-Jul-1998 - Times, 14 September 1998; Gazette, 23 September 1998; [1998] 3 WLR 735; [1998] UKHL 33; [1999] 1 AC 428; [1998] ICR 828; [1998] NI 240; [1998] IRLR 593

 
 Wade v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire; Mountain; Fountain and Devey; CA 31-Jul-1998 - Times, 09 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1369
 
Evesham v North Hertfordshire Health Authority and Another [1998] UKEAT 1354_97_0209
2 Sep 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Abegaze v IPR Technical Development Ltd [1998] UKEAT 385_98_0209
2 Sep 1998
EAT
Morison P J
Employment, Discrimination
The court was asked whether the proposed appeal raised an arguable point of law. The claimant had requested witness orders, but the tribunal had refused them. Five of the six requested attended as defentant's witnesses. Held: The Industrial Tribunal was perfectly entitled in the exercise of its discretion to refuse to make witness orders in the absence of some compelling or good reason. The request had been made too near the hearing date. As to the question of bias, the Employment Tribunal had been correct to rely on R v Gough.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Defence ex parte Perkins (2nd Report) Gazette, 03 September 1998
3 Sep 1998
QBD

Discrimination
A European Court ruling that discrimination on the grounds of sex is not the same as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was binding not only for the directive under which the decision was made.
Council Directive 75/117/EEC (Equal Treatment) Council Directive 76/297/EEC Equal Treatment


 
 Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd; ECJ 22-Sep-1998 - Times, 01 October 1998; Gazette, 10 December 1998; C-185/97; [1998] IRLR 656; [1999] ICR 100; [1998] ECR I-5199; [1998] EUECJ C-185/97
 
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v O Oguoko EAT/819/98
27 Sep 1998
EAT
His Honour Judge H J Byrt Qc
Discrimination
EAT Race Discrimination - Direct
[ EATn ]
 
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v O Oguoko EAT/819/98
27 Sep 1998
EAT
His Honour Judge H J Byrt QC
Discrimination
EAT Race Discrimination - Direct

 
Anya v University of Oxford and Another [1998] UKEAT 739_98_0110
1 Oct 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Malik T/a Funky (Fitness Trainer) v City of Newcastle Upon Tyne [1998] EWCA Civ 1493
6 Oct 1998
CA

Discrimination

[ Bailii ]
 
Ministry of Defence v Bloomfield-Evans [1998] UKEAT 1108_98_0910
9 Oct 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Tchoula v Netto Foodstores (UK) Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1542
15 Oct 1998
CA

Discrimination
The complainant alleged bias on the part of the tribunal, saying that a tribunal member had fallen asleep. He now sought leave to appeal against the decision of the EAT. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had indicated certain areas of dissatisfaction with the conduct of the case but had not reversed the judgment. Leave was given, but the appellant was warned against optimism.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Goodwin v Patent Office; EAT 21-Oct-1998 - Times, 11 November 1998; [1998] UKEAT 57_98_2110; [1999] ICR 302; [1999] IRLR 4
 
Kenny v Hampshire Constabulary Times, 22 October 1998; Gazette, 11 November 1998
22 Oct 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The withdrawal of a job offer to a man with cerebral palsy was not disability discrimination, where it was because of the difficulty of making the arrangements necessary to put the applicant in a position to do the work as opposed to pure work related issues.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 6


 
 Bartholomew v London Borough of Hackney and Yeboah; CA 23-Oct-1998 - Gazette, 19 May 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1604; [1999] IRLR 246
 
Akbar Ali v Avesta Sheffield Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1609
26 Oct 1998
CA

Discrimination

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Parekh v The United Kingdom 25388/02; [2008] ECHR 614
26 Oct 1998
ECHR
Lech Garlicki, P
Human Rights, Benefits, Discrimination
Admissibility - The applicant's wife died on 18 July 2000 leaving one child born in 1982. On 17 April 2001 the applicant applied for widows' benefits. On 1 May 2001 the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed. The applicant asked for reconsideration. On 14 February 2002 the matter was reconsidered and the decision remained unchanged.
The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
The applicant was in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim. He ceased to be eligible for such benefit on 25 December 2001. The applicant has been in receipt of income support since his wife's death which exceeded the rate of Widowed Mother's Allowance. Moreover, the applicant's wife had not paid the required national insurance contributions. Held: Inadmissible
European Convention on Human Rights
[ Bailii ]
 
Pearce v Mayfield Secondary School [1998] UKEAT 947_97_2610
26 Oct 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
"This is an appeal by Ms Shirley Pearce ['the applicant'] against a decision of a Chairman (Mr R H Trickey) sitting alone at the Southampton Industrial Tribunal on 4th June 1997, dismissing her complaint of sex discrimination brought against her former employer, the Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School ['the respondent'] on the grounds that it was out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 s. 76(1) and (5). The Chairman's reserved decision with extended reasons was promulgated on 8th July 1997."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Boyle and Others v Equal Opportunities Commission; ECJ 27-Oct-1998 - Times, 29 October 1998; C-411/96; [1998] EUECJ C-411/96
 
Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others [1998] UKEAT 676_97_0511
5 Nov 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Harry v London Borough of Southwark :Harry v Nalgo and Unison [1998] EWCA Civ 1796
19 Nov 1998
CA

Discrimination

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd Times, 03 December 1998; Gazette, 06 May 1999; [1999] IRLR 158; [1998] UKEAT 337_98_1911; [1999] ICR 269
19 Nov 1998
EAT
Morison J
Discrimination, Employment
Where a tribunal had found unfair dismissal and was considering an award of damages for injury to feelings under the Disability Discrimination Act, it had to recognise the different needs of unlimited awards, and take great care in assessing factual materials.
Morison J said: "What one might describe as the relatively brief and informal hearing on remedy appropriate in unfair dismissal cases may not be appropriate where the compensation is uncapped. In the former category of case, the judgment and experience of the lay members may be especially important in relation to the state of the job market in their locality and the potentiality for the applicant obtaining new employment, and thus, the tribunal may not be assisted by much, if any, evidence. But where the case involves unlimited compensation, it will often be the case that the remedies hearing should involve the parties in careful preparation under the management of the tribunal. For this purpose, directions may be required involving, amongst other things, an exchange of statements of case and any witness statements."
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [1998] UKEAT 1004_98_1911
19 Nov 1998
EAT
Morison J P
Employment, Discrimination
The Tribunal lifted the stay of the claimant's claim of disability discrimination.
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Handels Og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark (Acting On Behalf of Pedersen) v Faellesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (Acting On Behalf of Kvickly Skive) Times, 01 December 1998; C-66/96; [1998] EUECJ C-66/96
19 Nov 1998
ECJ

Discrimination, European
It was discriminatory to refuse payment of maternity benefits where a worker suffered a pathological illness connected to a pregnancy with an allowance of benefits where someone ordinarily sick would receive full pay.
Council Directive 75/117/EEC on Equal Pay for Men and Women
[ Bailii ]

 
 Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd; ECJ 1-Dec-1998 - Times, 10 December 1998; C-326/96; [1999] All ER (EC) 1; [1998] EUECJ C-326/96; [1999] CEC 3; [1998] ECR I-7835; [1999] 2 CMLR 363; [1999] ICR 521; [1999] IRLR 36
 
Virdi v Commissioner of Police of Metropolis [1998] UKEAT 1234_98_0212
2 Dec 1998
EAT
Morison P J
Employment, Discrimination
Appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal effectively to stay the Applicant's complaint. The claimant police officer complained of racial abuse from fellow officers. The stay had been pending completion of criminal proceedings against the claimant. Held: The chairman had acted within the range of his discretion. However the first date available should be fixed to set a hearing date.
[ Bailii ]
 
A v B [1998] UKEAT 518_98_0312
3 Dec 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination
The respondent appealed against an order allowing a sex discrimination claim appeal to go ahead though lodged out of time.
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7695)
[ Bailii ]
 
A v B [1998] UKEAT 1040_98_0712
7 Dec 1998
EAT
Altman J
Employment, Discrimination
The respondent challenged the appeal saying that no reasonably arguable point of law arose. The applicant said that a complaint had been made to the police, but that his employer had made no enquiries of them, and that had they done so they would have responded differently on her complaint. The employer had acted on being told of the complaint but not when he had been acquitted. The claimant had not brought this evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal had not either pursued the matter. Held: The appeal failed. The tribunal would assist a litigant in person, but the claimant's failure to present a piece of evidence could not amount to an error of law by the tribunal.
[ Bailii ]
 
Heinz Company Ltd v Kenrick [1998] UKEAT 1082_98_1012
10 Dec 1998
EAT

Employment, Discrimination

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Weathersfield Ltd (T/a Van and Truck Rentals) v Sargent Times, 31 December 1998; Gazette, 03 February 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1938; [1999] ICR 425; [1999] IRLR 94; [1999] Disc LR 290
10 Dec 1998
CA
Pill LJ, Swinton Thomas LJ and Beldam LJ
Employment, Discrimination
The employer, a vehicle hire operator, explained to the Claimant employee following her appointment as a receptionist their policy that if she received an enquiry from any coloured or Asians, judging by their voices, she was to tell them that there were no vehicles available. Upset by that policy she promptly resigned, and later claimed constructive dismissal. Held: The employer's appeal failed. An employee leaving without stating the reason for his dismissal need not always be debarred from claiming constructive dismissal, though the acceptance of repudiation should normally be communicated. Racial Discrimination isn't solely directed at complainant. The applicant who had been dismissed for refusing to implement a racially discriminatory trading policy had been discriminated against on racial grounds. Pill LJ said: the words on “racial grounds” were to be broadly construed; and it was “justified and appropriate” to give a broad meaning to the expression racial grounds. Swinton Thomas LJ thought that there was value in the respondent’s submission that s1(1)(a) might have been intended to be limited to the race of the complainant, but then rejected that proposition, and accepted the Showboat principle of the broad construction of “racial grounds”: “I do not think that it is helpful in a case such as this to try and ascertain the intention of a draftsman of the Act, or the intention of Parliament, because it seems to me to be unlikely that the circumstances that arise in this case were considered either by the draftsman or by Parliament. In my judgment it is more helpful to focus on the intention underlining the Act itself and the words used. The intent of the Act is to deter racial discrimination…”
Race Relations Act 1976
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd; CA 18-Dec-1998 - Times, 04 January 1999; Gazette, 03 February 1999; Gazette, 06 May 1999; [1999] ICR 834; (1999) IRLR 177; [1998] EWCA Civ 3537; [1999] 1 FLR 944; [1999] Disc LR 265; (2000) 52 BMLR 153
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.