

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. Â
		Discrimination - From: 1999 To: 1999 This page lists 151 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice 1999 (1) SA 6 1999 Sachs J Discrimination South African Constitutional Court - Sachs J said: "While recognising the unique worth of each person, the Constitution does not presuppose that a holder of rights is an isolated, lonely and abstract figure possessing a disembodied and socially disconnected self. It acknowledges that people live in their bodies, their communities, their cultures, their places and their times. The expression of sexuality requires a partner, real or imagined." 1 Citers Â Law Hospital NHS Trust v Rush EAT/842/99 21 Jan 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Scotland, Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â Abbey National Plc J Rollinson v Ackroyd EAT/987/98 29 Jan 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Abbey National Plc, Ms J Rollinson v Ms T A Ackroyd EAT/987/98 29 Jan 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â Goodwin v Patent Office Times, 03 February 1999; [1999] IRLR 4; [1999] ICR 302 3 Feb 1999 EAT Morison P Employment, Discrimination Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not impaired. "The tribunal should bear in mind that with social legislation of this kind, a purposive approach to construction should be adopted. The language should be construed in a way which gives effect to the stated or presumed intention of Parliament, but with due regard to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in question. " and "the tribunal must consider whether the adverse effect is substantial. This is a word which is potentially ambiguous. 'Substantial' might mean 'very large' or it might mean 'more than minor or trivial'. Reference to the Guide shows that the word has been used in the latter sense" and "The Tribunal will wish to examine how the applicant’s abilities had actually been effected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds to the difficult question as to the effects which they think there would have been but for the medication: the deduced effects. The question is then whether the actual and deduced effects on the applicant’s abilities to carry out normal day to day activities is clearly more than trivial." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â British Sugar Plc v Kirker; EAT 3-Feb-1999 - Gazette, 03 February 1999; [1998] IRLR 624 Â Kolawole Fashola v London Borough of Hackney Wendy Collins [1999] EWCA Civ 722 5 Feb 1999 CA Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â O'Neill v Symm and Company Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1422; [1999] EWCA Civ 747 9 Feb 1999 CA Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another Times, 25 February 1999; C-167/97; [1999] IRLR 253; [1999] ICR 447; [1999] ECR I-623; [1999] EUECJ C-167/97 9 Feb 1999 ECJ Discrimination, European Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and women was substantial. EC Treaty 119 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mensah v Grant and Another [1999] UKEAT 938_98_2602 26 Feb 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Balamoody v Manchester Health Authority [1999] UKEAT 1288_97_0203 2 Mar 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination The claimant appealed against orders striking out his complaint of unlawful racial discrimination. He had owned a nursing home regulated by the respondent authority. A senior white employee had broken regulations regarding safekeeping of drugs, but he as owner had been prosecuted and struck off. She had not. The home registration was then cancelled. He complained that the decision to prosecute him was unlawful discrimination. Held. In this context the respondent was not a body whose relationship with the applicant fell within section 12 of the 1976 Act. The appeal failed. Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993 13(2)(d) - Race Relations Act 1976 12 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ayobiojo v Unison [1999] UKEAT 1330_98_1003 10 Mar 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Carver (Nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines Times, 24 March 1999; Gazette, 27 June 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1002; [1999] ICR 991 17 Mar 1999 CA Mantell LJ, Beldam LJ and Ward LJ Employment, Jurisdiction, Discrimination The applicant was recruited in Saudi Arabia in 1986 as a flight attendant under a contract expressed to be subject to Saudi Arabian law. After being trained in Jeddah, and then employed in India for four years, she was transferred to be based in London, from which all her tours of duty as a flight attendant thereafter commenced, and at which they ended. She complained of unfair dismissal and of sex discrimination. Held: By reference to the relevant test at the time for the jurisdiction of UK tribunals in relation to unfair dismissal, she did not ordinarily work in Great Britain. So far as concerned the sex discrimination claim, the applicant's appeal was allowed to the extent that the issue was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal to determine where the applicant wholly or mainly did her work at the relevant time. When a tribunal has to decide where an employee 'ordinarily works', the tribunal must look to the entire period of the contract, and not to some smaller, artificial, part. A contract begun and substantially worked in Jeddah was not subject to UK law. As to the term 'ordinarily': "Here the position was quite different. The Tribunal had to consider where at the time of the alleged discrimination the appellant was "wholly or mainly" working [our underlining]. See Haughton v Olau Line (UK) Ltd [1986] ICR 357 in the Court of Appeal. However, the tribunal decided jurisdiction on where the applicant was ordinarily working. That was impermissible. Insofar as the tribunal purported to make a finding of fact as to where the applicant was wholly or mainly working, it seems to me that it did so without any evidential basis. The tribunal appears to have taken the monthly, minimum, flying time, namely 72 hours, required of the applicant and set it against a notional working week of 40 hours. By such a comparison it would seem that the applicant worked most of her time within Great Britain. But neither the 72 hours minimum flying time nor the notional 40-hour week had any relevance to the question which had to be determined. Consequently I would hold the finding to be without any foundation and as such to amount to an error of law. I would be minded therefore, to remit the question of jurisdiction under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to the tribunal, differently constituted, with a direction to determine the question of jurisdiction on the basis of where the applicant wholly or mainly did her work at the relevant time." Employment Rights Act 1996 196 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Arthur v Attorney-General; EAT 18-Mar-1999 - Times, 18 March 1999 Â Â Anyanwu and Ebuzoeme v South Bank Students' Union South Bank University; CA 19-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1032 Â Post Office v Jones [1999] UKEAT 83_99_2303 23 Mar 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold); CA 25-Mar-1999 - Times, 01 April 1999; [1999] IRLR 318; [1999] EWCA Civ 1091; [1999] ICR 951; [1999] Disc LR 240; (1999) 48 BMLR 1; [1999] 2 All ER 977 Â Â Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah; HL 25-Mar-1999 - Gazette, 28 April 1999; Times, 26 March 1999; [1999] UKHL 20; [1999] 2 AC 629; [1999] 2 All ER 545; [1999] Imm AR 283; 6 BHRC 356; [1999] 2 WLR 1015; [1999] INLR 144 Â Â Rowlands v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council; CA 26-Mar-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 1116 Â Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd and others [1999] UKEAT 1120_98_1404 14 Apr 1999 EAT Holland J Employment, Discrimination 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lewisham and Guys Mental Health NHS Trust v Andrews Gazette, 11 August 1999; Times, 21 April 1999 21 Apr 1999 EAT Discrimination, Damages, Wills and Probate A claim of damages for race discrimination did not survive the claimant's death, and the estate cannot continue the claim. There is no statutory basis for such a survival, and it had not been intended by Parliament. This differs explicitly from other types of claims under general employment law, but is similar for sex discrimination. Race Relations Act 1976 Â Omilaju v Waltham Forest and others [1999] UKEAT 1_99_2304 23 Apr 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Regina v Powys County Council, ex parte Jenny Diane Hambidge [1999] EWHC Admin 371 28 Apr 1999 Admn Local Government, Health, Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 20 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Tom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT/1299/98; [2000] ICR 1; [1999] UKEAT 1299_98_0505 5 May 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction Race Relations Act 1976 2(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â C Maloney v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; C Whatford; Governing Body of Hammersmith School and D A Williams [1999] EWCA Civ 1360 7 May 1999 CA Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Otton And Lord Justice Clarke Discrimination, Employment The claimant sought damages from the respondents. The case was listed to be heard over 25 days, but she sought an adjournment because of her own ill health. She appealed a refusal of the adjournment. The adjournment was refused on several grounds, including the great age of the action, and the need for a speedy answer because of the effects on others. The EAT had followed Mansell and refused to set aside an interlocutory order of the Employment Tribunal. Held: Appeals on matters not put to the EAT had to be refused. It could not be shown that the decisions of the ET and EAT were perverse. Others might have decided differently, but that was not the test. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 4 - Race Relations Act 1976 2 - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 8 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Barker v Westbridge International Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1180_98_1905 19 May 1999 EAT Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Day v T Pickles Farms Ltd Gazette, 19 May 1999 19 May 1999 EAT Discrimination An employee, nauseous in pregnancy as a result of her work, claimed constructive dismissal and sex discrimination for the absence of a risk assessment. She did not establish repudiation, but an employer of women of child bearing age required assessment. Â Â Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd; EAT 19-May-1999 - Times, 03 June 1999; EAT/1332/95; [1999] UKEAT 1332_95_1905 Â Â Angestelltenbetriebsrat Der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse; ECJ 20-May-1999 - Times, 20 May 1999; C-309/97; [1999] EUECJ C-309/97; [2000] ICR 1134 Â Â Hearne v Secretary of State for Wales and Carmarthenshire County Council; Admn 25-May-1999 - [1999] EWHC Admin 494 Â Jawhary v Ibca Limited EAT/1053/98 25 May 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Jawhary v IBCA Limited EAT/1053/98 25 May 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â London Borough of Lambeth v D'Souza Gazette, 26 May 1999 26 May 1999 CA Discrimination An award of 358,288 pounds for racial discrimination was overturned. The removal of the limit on compensation operated after 3 July 1994. The finding was before that, even though the eventual order was afterwards. Â London Borough of Hillingdon v Ms A F Morgan EAT/1493/98 27 May 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699; [1999] UKEAT 1004_98_2705; (2001) 57 BMLR 170 27 May 1999 EAT Peter Clark J Employment, Discrimination The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression. Held: The claimant's appeal succeeded. Peter Clark J said: "There was no evidence as to the effect on day-to-day activities in the sense that no evidence was called from friends, family or colleagues. However, there was uncontested medical opinion evidence from the appellant's General Practitioner and Consultant Clinical Psychologist that he was disabled within the meaning of the Act." Whilst it can be possible for a tribunal to reject uncontested medical evidence for good reason, here they had simply disregarded it. That was not acceptable, and this was a case where the EAT could substitute its own decision as to the facts. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Hillingdon v A F Morgan EAT/1493/98 27 May 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Greenwood v British Airways Plc [1999] UKEAT 867_98_1706; [1999] ICR 969 17 Jun 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal. Held: "In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the Guidance makes clear, that the tribunal should consider the adverse effects of the applicant's condition up to and including the industrial tribunal hearing. By disregarding its findings of fact as to the actual recurrence of the adverse effects of the applicant's condition which led him to go off work by reason of depression on 16 August 1997 and to continue off work until the date of the tribunal hearing the tribunal's approach was fatally flawed." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â D K Dass v London Guildhall University EAT/664/98 21 Jun 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ EATn ] Â D K Dass v London Guildhall University EAT/664/98 21 Jun 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â London Underground Ltd v Bragg [1999] UKEAT 847_98_2306; EAT/847/98 23 Jun 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Abbanur Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd Gazette, 07 July 1999; Times, 08 July 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1663; [1999] ICR 1170 24 Jun 1999 CA Stuart Smith LJ Discrimination, Damages The Claimant complained to an industrial tribunal of unlawful racial discrimination. He had suffered a nervous breakdown and was certified as unfit for work due to stress. The employer had compromised all claims justiciable by the Employment tribunal. Held: The employment tribunal had similar powers to the county court when hearing cases alleging the tort of racial discrimination, and the employment tribunal therefore had the power to award damages for personal injuries suffered because of the tort. Having claimed at the industrial tribunal it was therefore an abuse of process to bring a later claim on the same facts in the county court for damages the ET could have awarded. Section 57(4) adds a head of injury for which compensation is payable since at common law a claimant cannot as a rule recover damages for injuries for feelings, save in defamation and false imprisonment. Race Relations Act 1976 56 57(4) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â L Adebayo, G A Olalere v Swirl Services Group EAT/665/98 & EAT/666/98 29 Jun 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â L Adebayo G A Olalere v Swirl Services Group EAT/666/98; EAT/665/98 29 Jun 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Sarah Jane Healy v William B Morrison and Son Ltd EAT/172/99 30 Jun 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Sarah Jane Healy v William B Morrison and Son Ltd EAT/172/99 30 Jun 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â S Harrison v Boots the Chemist Ltd EAT/1098/97 2 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â S Harrison v Boots the Chemist Ltd EAT/1098/97 2 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Leicester City Council v P McConnell EAT/820/98 5 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Pereira v Norton and Co EAT/806/98; [1999] UKEAT 806_98_0107 5 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] Â Leicester City Council v McConnell EAT/820/98 5 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â L Pereira v Norton and Co EAT/806/98 5 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â Ms D Bull v Harrods Ltd EAT/1426/98 6 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â D Bull v Harrods Ltd EAT/1426/98 6 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation Â T Conwell v London Borough of Newham EAT/991/98 8 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â T Conwell v London Borough of Newham EAT/991/98 8 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â P B Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd EAT/1002/98; [1999] IRLR 604; [1999] UKEAT 1002_98_1407 14 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination The Tribunal set out the order of questions to be established in a claim of disability discrimination: 'The statutory sequence for establishing justification in a s.5(1)(a) claim is as follows: (1) The disabled appellant shows less favourable treatment, dismissal, under ss.1(1)(a) and 4(2)(d). (2) The respondent shows that that treatment, the dismissal, is justified if: (i) the reason for the dismissal is both material to the circumstances of the particular case and substantial (s.5(3)), unless (ii) the employer is under a s.6 duty in relation to the appellant but fails without justification to comply with that duty, subject to the treatment being justified even if he had complied with the s.6 duty. Thus, far from the question of a s.6 duty being irrelevant to justification under s.5(1)(b), it will be necessary for the respondent to show for the purpose of establishing the requirements of s.5(3), that the reason for dismissal was material to the circumstances of the case and substantial and that he has not, without justification failed to comply with any duty under s.6.' Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â M Chilton v H M Prison Service EAT/979/98 15 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Clint Alexander v Northampton Borough Council [1999] EWCA Civ 1844 15 Jul 1999 CA Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â M Chilton v H M Prison Service EAT/979/98 15 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Â Swiggs and others v Nagarajan; HL 15-Jul-1999 - Times, 19 July 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1999] UKHL 36; [2000] 1 AC 501; [1999] 3 WLR 425; [1999] 4 All ER 65; [1999] IRLR 572; [1999] ICR 877 Â Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc [1999] UKEAT 757_99_1507 15 Jul 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bloomberg Financial Markets v M Cumandala EAT/672/98, EAT/673/98 19 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â Bloomberg Financial Markets v M Cumandala EAT/673/98; EAT/672/98 19 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Ms D Cyrus v the Secretary of State for Education and Employment EAT/1218/98 21 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge D M Levy Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â D Cyrus v the Secretary of State for Education and Employment EAT/1218/98 21 Jul 1999 EAT His Honour Judge D M Levy QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Â Barry v Midland Bank Plc; HL 22-Jul-1999 - Times, 23 July 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1999] UKHL 38; [1999] ICR 859; [1999] 1 WLR 1465; [1999] 3 All ER 974 Â Lambert Parchment v Ford Motor Company Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1965 26 Jul 1999 CA Discrimination, Limitation The claimant sought to bring a claim for race discrimination some 13 years after leaving the defendant's employment. Held: This was an appeal against the exercise of a discretion. There had been no misdirection, and the appeal had no prospects of success. [ Bailii ] Â Â Coker and Osamor v Lord Chancellor and Lord Chancellor's Department; ET 28-Jul-1999 - Gazette, 28 July 1999; [1999] IRLR 396 Â U Malhotra v Price Waterhouse EAT/528/98 29 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â E Mensah v Northwick Park Hospital and others EAT/711/99 29 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â E Mensah v Northwick Park Hospital and others EAT/711/99; [1999] UKEAT 711_99_2907 29 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] Â U Malhotra v Price Waterhouse EAT/528/98 29 Jul 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Dr Grace Awaekpo v St Mary's NHS Trust and others [1999] EWCA Civ 2075 10 Aug 1999 CA Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Williams v Cowell and Another (t/a The Stables) Times, 12 August 1999; Gazette, 11 August 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1893 11 Aug 1999 CA Administrative, Discrimination There was no right in an appellant from an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Wales to the Employment Appeal Tribunal sitting in London to insist that the Tribunal hear the case in Welsh. The appellant spoke English perfectly well, it was not a matter in which evidence was to be given and the appeal was a fresh matter with new issues arising. Convenience to the parties had to balance convenience to others. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â F Khanum v IBC Vehicles Ltd EAT/685/98; [1999] UKEAT 685_98_1509; [1998] UKEAT 685_98_0109 15 Aug 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Y Onomor v Osbornes (A Firm) EAT/1372/98 19 Aug 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other [ EATn ] Â Ms K Bavin v the NHS Trust Pensions Sos for Health EAT/1211/98 19 Aug 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â K Bavin v 1 the NHS Trust Pensions 2 Sos for Health EAT/1211/98 19 Aug 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Ayobiojo v NALGO/Unison Trade Union [1999] EWCA Civ 2094 19 Aug 1999 CA Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â C A Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc EAT/1297/98 23 Aug 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â C A Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc Gazette, 10 November 1999; EAT/1297/98; (1999) IRLR 680 23 Aug 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Employment, Discrimination When assessing disability, the tribunal should be careful not to think that disability would necessarily be evidenced by some physical sign, such as dependence upon a wheelchair. The large majority of the disabled would not meet such an assessment, and the statutory criteria are not so limited. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers Â SPV v AM and Another [1999] EWCA Civ 2111 27 Aug 1999 CA Lord Justice Schiemann Employment, Discrimination, Police The respondent sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal that he was an appropriate respondent to the claimant's claim for sex discrimination. The claimant had been a police officer, and claimed she had been the subject of repeated and unwanted sexual advances from the respondent. He argued that only the Chief Constable was an appropriate defendant. Held: A police officer against whom an allegation of discrimination was made was a proper respondent in addition to the Chief Constable. The case of Fara was of no assistance to him. The legislation clearly allowed that he might have responsibility. Discrimination Act 1975 6(2)(b) 41(1) 42 17(1) 1 Cites Â Â AM v WC and SPV; EAT 2-Sep-1999 - Gazette, 02 September 1999; (1999) IRLR 410 Â Acland and others v Devon County Council and others EAT/1220/98; [1999] UKEAT 1220_98_1409 14 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Mhc Consulting Services Ltd v C Tansell and others EAT/1373/98 14 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Other. [ EATn ] Â Indu Krishna v Argyll and Bute Council and Another UKEATS/0446/99 14 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - (no sub-topic). [ EATn ] Â Mhc Consulting Services Ltd v C Tansell and others EAT/1373/98 14 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Other Â N Berry v The Bethlem and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/180/98; [1999] UKEAT 180_98_1509 15 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â Davies v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Times, 26 October 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; EAT/449/97; [1999] UKEAT 449_97_1509 15 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination, Employment, European A part time worker who attended a full time course on union matters connected with her employment was discriminated against when not paid the full time taken by the course. Since the majority of part time workers were women, a provision resulting in part timers having to spend unpaid time for which a full time worker would be paid was indirect discrimination. EAT European Material - Article 19 [ Bailii ] Â N Berry v the Bethlem and Maudsley NHS Trust EAT/180/98 15 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Kent County Council v A Mingo EAT/1097/98 17 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Kent County Council v A Mingo EAT/1097/98 17 Sep 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Sawyer v Ahsam Times, 21 September 1999 21 Sep 1999 CA Discrimination A local councillor deselected for a forthcoming election by his political party had the capacity to claim racial discrimination in respect of the deselection, since the holding of office as a councillor could amount to engagement in a profession, and the political party had the power to confer the qualification by selection to go forward for election. Race Relations Act 1976 12 Â K E Taylor v Commissioners of Inland Revenue EAT/498/98 27 Sep 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites [ EAT ] Â Levez etc v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No 2) Times, 10 November 1999; EAT/311/99; EAT/812/94; [2000] ICR 58 1 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (P) Discrimination, European, Employment The restriction on the awards of compensation for sex discrimination to payments in respect of a period of two years prior to the claim was unlawful. Claims of other natures were not so limited, and this could not be supported, since it was in breach of EC law. The period of only two years in section 2(5) offended against the principle of equivalence under EU law. Compensation could not be so limited. Treaty law is to prevail over national law where there was a conflict. EC Treaty Art 141 - Equal Pay Act 1970 2(5) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â P Bennett v Essex County Council and Others, the Chair and Governors of Fryerna€s School, S D Hayes EAT/1447/98 5 Oct 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Bennett v Essex County Council and Others, the Chair and Governors of Fryerns School, S D Hayes EAT/1447/98 5 Oct 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â G A Hardie v C D Northern Ltd EAT/1142/98 5 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Jurisdiction. [ EATn ] Â G A Hardie v C D Northern Ltd EAT/1142/98 5 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Jurisdiction Â Pearce v Mayfield School EAT/675/99; [1999] UKEAT 675_99_0710 7 Oct 1999 EAT Lindsay P J Employment, Discrimination Directions appeal. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Natfhe Union, F Shahrokni v F Shahrokni, Natfhe Union EAT/989/98; EAT/232/98 7 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other Â Natfhe Union, F Shahrokni v F Shahrokni, Natfhe Union EAT/232/98 & EAT/989/98 7 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other [ EATn ] Â Â Balamoody v UKCC for Nursing Midwifery and Home Visitors; EAT 15-Oct-1999 - [1999] UKEAT 744_99_1510 Â Sivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality (Hare) [1999] UKEAT 616_99_2010; EAT/616/99 20 Oct 1999 EAT His Honour Judge J Hicks QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Â Abdoulaya and Others v Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA; ECJ 20-Oct-1999 - Times, 20 October 1999; C-218/98; [1999] EUECJ C-218/98 Â J F Kerrigan v Rover Group Ltd EAT/1185/98 26 Oct 1999 EAT His Honour Judge H Wilson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â J F Kerrigan v Rover Group Ltd EAT/1185/98 26 Oct 1999 EAT His Honour Judge H Wilson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Knightstone Housing Association v Crawford [1999] UKEAT 1002_99_2710; EAT/1002/99 27 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Marital status. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Â Sirdar v Army Board and Another; ECFI 27-Oct-1999 - Times, 27 October 1999; C-273/97; [1999] EUECJ C-273/97; ECLI:EU:C:1999:523; [1999] ECR I-7403 Â Â Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd; HL 28-Oct-1999 - Times, 02 November 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; [1999] 3 WLR 1113; [2001] 1 AC 27; [1999] UKHL 42; [1999] 4 All ER 705 Â Eltek (UK) Ltd v Thomson and others [1999] UKEAT 13_99_2810; EAT/13/99 28 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Others [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Broudie, R M Broudie and Co v Khan EAT/729/97 28 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â Surrey Heath Borough Council v A E Crooks EAT/152/99 29 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â Surrey Heath Borough Council v A E Crooks EAT/152/99 29 Oct 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring Discrimination Â Elizabeth Speirs v Edinburgh's Telford College EAT/522/99 1 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Ms Elizabeth Speirs v Edinburgha€s Telford College EAT/522/99 1 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Hammersmith and Fulham and Another v Ezeonyim [1999] UKEAT 659_99_0211 2 Nov 1999 EAT Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Students' Union and Another; CA 4-Nov-1999 - Gazette, 10 November 1999; Times, 04 November 1999; [2000] ICR 221 Â Effa v Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust Unreported 5 November 1999 5 Nov 1999 CA Mummery LJ, Mantell and Kennedy LJJ Discrimination, Employment The tribunal's decision was found to have confused unreasonable treatment with discriminatory treatment. “It is common ground that an error in law is made by a tribunal if it finds less favourable treatment on racial grounds where there is no evidence or material from which it can properly make such in inference. See North West Thames Regional Health Authority v Noone [1988] ICR 813, [1988] IRLR 530 at p.824 of the former report. Although an employment tribunal is less formal in its procedures than a court of law and is not bound by the rules of evidence, it must be satisfied that the complaint is proved, on the balance of probabilities, by the person who makes it. In the absence of direct evidence on an issue of less favourable treatment on racial grounds, the tribunal may make inferences from other facts which are undisputed or are established by evidence. However, in the absence of adequate material from which inferences can be properly made, a tribunal is not entitled to find a claim proved by making unsupported legal or factual assumptions about disputed questions of less favourable treatment on racial grounds. This is so whether the discrimination is alleged to arise from conscious or subconscious influences operating in the mind of the alleged discriminator.” 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Hearne v National Assembly for Wales and Another Times, 10 November 1999 10 Nov 1999 CA Discrimination, Planning When looking at whether a person was a gypsy so as to qualify for additional consideration, the test was to be applied at the time when the decision was made and not when the application was made. It was acknowledged that an applicant could change status from time to time, and that this might lead to some logical inconsistency, but the statute was clear and no supporting guidance suggested otherwise. Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd; EAT 10-Nov-1999 - Gazette, 10 November 1999; (1999) IRLR 683 Â the Cromwell Hospital v F Francis, K Licorish EAT/654/98 12 Nov 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â the Cromwell Hospital v F Francis K Licorish EAT/654/98 12 Nov 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Shand v Leicestershire County Council and Another [1999] UKEAT 9_99_1211 12 Nov 1999 EAT Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A O Adegbite v J Demirsoz, Commissioners of Inland Revenue EAT/565/99 14 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A O Adegbite v J Demirsoz Commissioners of Inland Revenue EAT/565/99 14 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Lewen v Denda (Case C-333/97) Times, 16 November 1999 16 Nov 1999 ECJ Discrimination, Employment A voluntary bonus paid by an employer to its staff at Christmas was 'pay' within Art 14 of the EC Treaty, where it was paid to encourage or reward for loyalty and work. Such a payment was not a 'payment' within the rules governing measures to encourage health and safety of pregnant and breast feeding workers. ECTreaty Art 14, Council Directive 92/85/EEC Â A Butler v A Preston, Eglantier Ltd EAT/1332/98 18 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A Butler v A Preston Eglantier Ltd EAT/1332/98 18 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Department of Social Security and others v Photay [1999] UKEAT 724_99_2411; EAT/724/99 24 Nov 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Employment, Discrimination EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal. [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â S Dean v London Borough of Islington EAT/594/97 1 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest and others EAT/986/99; [1999] UKEAT 986_99_0112 1 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Employment, Discrimination EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â S Dean v London Borough of Islington EAT/594/97 1 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Francis Patrick Mulligan v Commissioner for Inland Revenue EAT/691/99 2 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Francis Patrick Mulligan v Commissioner for Inland Revenue EAT/691/99 2 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â H J Heinz Co Ltd v Kenrick EAT/1082/98; [2000] IRLR 144; [1999] UKEAT 1082_98_0312; [2000] ICR 491 3 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â the Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v W EAT/1144/99 6 Dec 1999 EATw The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v W [1999] UKEAT 1144_99_0612; EAT/1144/99 6 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Regina v Saunders Times, 28 January 2000; Gazette, 08 December 1999 8 Dec 1999 CACD Criminal Sentencing, Discrimination Having been convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm which assault was racially aggravated, the defendant was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment. On appeal against sentence, the court said the presence of racially aggravating features should add up to two years to the sentence which would otherwise be passed. Nevertheless the court should still take into account the various facets of that aggravating element as present in this case. Offences against the Person Act 1861 47 Â Wood and others v William Bell Ltd Gazette, 08 December 1999; (1999) IRLR 773 8 Dec 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination A tribunal having decided not to call for expert evidence as to the situation of comparators in an equal pay claim, dismissed the application after deciding that the appellants had no reasonable prospect of success. This was wrong, and it failed to recognise the two stages of the procedure, which should have later allowed the claimant themselves to choose to bring such evidence. The appellants had accordingly been denied a proper hearing, and the case was remitted. Equal Pay Act 1970 Â A Mckenzie v East Sussex County Council EAT/1334/98 13 Dec 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â A McKenzie v East Sussex County Council EAT/1334/98; [1999] UKEAT 1334_98_1312 13 Dec 1999 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability The parties sought to settle the appeal by consent. The Tribunal was obliged to consider the merits before making an order. In this case the order requested was made, and the matter remitted to the employment tribunal. Disability Discrimination Act 1996 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â El'Abed v British Broadcasting Corporation [1999] UKEAT 1335_98_1412 14 Dec 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination Appeal by Mr Elabed against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that his complaints of race discrimination against the British Broadcasting Corporation ['BBC'] failed and were dismissed. [ Bailii ] Â T Harvey-Bussell v Sun Alliance Group Plc and others EAT/721/98 16 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Regina v Secretary of State for Social Security Ex Parte Taylor Times, 25 January 2000; C-382/98; [1999] EUECJ C-382/98; [1999] ECR I-8955 16 Dec 1999 ECJ Discrimination, European, Benefits The government made additional payments to pensioners in respect of the additional fuel costs incurred in winter. The complainant asserted that as a man aged 62, he would not receive this benefit where a woman of the same age would have done, and that this was discrimination arising from his sex. Held: The Directive provided for services including those relating to the age of the applicant, this benefit was one such, and the rules were discriminatory and unlawful. Europa Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Grant of a winter fuel payment - Link with pensionable age. Case C-382/98. 1 Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Matters covered by Directive 79/7 - Winter fuel payment payable to those who have reached a minimum age rather than on the basis of a lack of financial means - Included (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 3(1)) 2 Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7 - Derogation allowed in respect of possible consequences for other benefits of different pensionable ages - Scope -Limited to forms of discrimination necessarily and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages - Discrimination with regard to grant of a winter fuel payment - Excluded (Council Directive 79/7, Art. 7(2)(a)) Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, which defines the matters covered by the Directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a winter fuel payment, which is part of a statutory scheme, is covered by that directive in so far as payment of the benefit is always subject to the recipients having reached statutory retirement age and it is therefore aimed at protecting them against the risk of old age mentioned in that article. The benefit may be granted to elderly persons, even if they do not have financial difficulties, so that protection against a lack of financial means cannot be considered to be the aim of the benefit. 2 The derogation from the principle of equal treatment for men and women laid down in Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security is not applicable to a benefit such as the winter fuel payment, which is subject to the condition that the recipient has reached statutory retirement age, that is to say the age of 60 for women and 65 for men. Such discrimination is not objectively and necessarily linked to the difference in retirement age for men and women. First, from the point of view of the financial equilibrium of the social security system, it is not necessary either for the financial equilibrium of contributory pension schemes, in view of the fact that the benefits are granted under a non-contributory scheme, or for the financial equilibrium of the social security system as a whole. Secondly, from the point of view of consistency between the retirement pension scheme and the other benefit scheme, it is not required, since if the benefit is designed to provide protection against the risk of old age and must, therefore, be paid only to those above a certain age, it does not follow that that age must necessarily coincide with the statutory age of retirement and, as a result, be different for men and women. Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Amendment Regulations 1998 No 1910 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â T Harvey-Bussell v Sun Alliance Group Plc and others EAT/721/98 16 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd Michael Huss Anthony Sutcliffe, Peter Done EAT/1120/98; [1999] UKEAT 1120_98_1712; [2000] IRLR 151 17 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination, Employment EAT The claimant said that she had been subjected to crass sexual banter by her senior manager. She refused to take up a post unless he was moved, and when he declined to so, she was dismissed. The court cited a US case "the trier of fact must keep in mind that each successive episode has its predecessors, that the impact of the separate incidents may accumulate and that the work environment may exceed the sum of the individual episodes." Where an act may be so obviously detrimental as being intimidating or undermining of the dignity at work of the Claimant the the lack of any contemporaneous complaint was of little or no significance: "By contrast [the complainant] may complain of one or more matters which if taken individually may not objectively signify much, if anything, in terms of detriment. Then a contemporaneous indication of sensitivity on [the complainant's] part becomes obviously material as does the evidence of the alleged discriminator as to his perception. That which in isolation may not amount to discriminatory detriment may become such if persisted in notwithstanding objection, vocal or apparent. The passage… from the judgment of the US Federal Appeal Court is germane. By contrast the facts may simply disclose hyper-sensitivity on the part of the [complainant] to conduct which was reasonably not perceived by the alleged discriminator as being to [the complainants] detriment – no finding of discrimination can then follow." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Anya v University of Oxford and Another [1999] UKEAT 739_98_1712 17 Dec 1999 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â A M Arboshe v East London Bus and Coach Co Ltd EAT/877/98 17 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â A M Arboshe v East London Bus and Coach Co Ltd EAT/877/98 17 Dec 1999 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Holland Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta v Portugal (1999) 31 EHRR 1055; (2001) 31 EHRR 47; 33290/96; [1999] ECHR 176; [2001] 1 FCR 653 21 Dec 1999 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination There was a difference in treatment between the applicant and a comparator based on the applicant’s sexual orientation, a concept which is undoubtedly covered by Article 14. The list set out in this provision is of an indicative nature and is not definitive, as is evidenced by the adverb notamment (in English: ‘any ground such as’) . . the [national] Appeal Court used a distinction dictated by considerations relating to the applicant’s sexual orientation, a distinction which cannot be tolerated under the Convention. Discrimination based on sexuality was covered by the in article 8 prohibition, not because "sex" includes "sexuality" but because the list is not exhaustive. European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Discrimination - From: 1999 To: 1999