

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: 2001 To: 2001 This page lists 292 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Governors of Warwick Park School v Hazelhurst [2001] EWCA Civ 2056 2001 CA Pill LJ Discrimination, Employment “In my judgment the Employment Appeal Tribunal were correct to hold that there was an error of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal as identified by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In a situation in which it is expressly found that there was no deliberate or conscious racial discrimination, it is necessary, before drawing the inference sought to be drawn, to set out the facts relied on and the process by which the inference is drawn. In some cases that process of reasoning need only be brief; in other cases more detailed reasoning will be required. The Employment Appeal Tribunal approached the matter in this way: "... we do suggest that the less obvious the primary facts are as pointers or the more inconclusive or ambivalent the explanations given for the events in issue are as pointers, the more the need for the Employment Tribunal to explain why it is that from such primary facts and upon such explanations the inference that they have drawn has been drawn. The more equivocal the primary facts, the more the Employment Tribunal needs to explain why they have concluded as they have." and "As we have mentioned the tribunal repeatedly said that there had been no intention to discriminate. That, of course, is not in itself an answer but it is likely to lead to a position in which the reasons for the inference of racial discrimination need to be fully explained." 1 Citers Â Â Equal Opportunities Commission v Director of Education; 2001 - [2001] 2 HKLRD 690 Â D C D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth [2001] EWCA Civ 794 2001 CA Schiemann and Robert Walker LJJ and Lloyd J Discrimination The court dismissed the claimant's claim for damages for racial discrimination for acts occurring after the termination of his employment by the respondents. Held: Applying Adekeye, the claim was dismissed, but the court saw 'some force' in the submission that the decision in Adekeye's case could have gone the other way. 1 Cites Â Lexington Burke v Essilor Ltd EAT/605/00 3 Jan 2001 EAT Her Honour Judge A Wakefield Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â The London Borough of Harrow v Utum Mungur EAT/978/99 & EAT/1439/99 11 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge A Wilkie Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â Hallam Larrier v Liverpool City Council and others EAT/800/99 11 Jan 2001 EAT Sir Christopher Bellamy Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive v S Sands EAT/538/00 11 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation Â The London Borough of Harrow v Utum Mungur EAT/1439/99; EAT/978/99 11 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge A Wilkie QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive v S Sands EAT/538/00 11 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EAT ] Â J Sandhu v Benefits Agency, K Ridgewell EAT/1028/99 12 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D Pugsley Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â Abbey National Plc v Shirley Sampson EAT/1484/99 12 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Collins Cbe Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation Â Â Regina v Wakefield; Regina v Lancashire; CACD 12-Jan-2001 - Times, 12 January 2001 Â Abbey National Plc v Sampson EAT/1484/99 12 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Collins Cbe Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EAT ] Â J Sandhu v Benefits Agency K Ridgewell EAT/1028/99 12 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D Pugsley Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â J Hussaney v Chester City Fc, K Ratcliffe EAT/203/98 15 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â J Hussaney v Chester City Fc K Ratcliffe EAT/203/98 15 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Dr A Doshoki v Draeger Ltd EAT/0939/01 16 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Dr A Doshoki v Draeger Ltd EAT/939/01 16 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Dr A Doshoki v Draeger Ltd EAT/939/01 16 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to Feelings Â The Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellors Department v Ms J Coker, Ms M Osamor EAT/819/99 EAT/820/99 17 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EAT ] Â The Lord Chancellor and Another v Coker and Another [2001] UKEAT 820_99_1701; [2001] Emp LR 272; [2001] ICR 507; [2001] IRLR 116 17 Jan 2001 EAT Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination, Discrimination Appeal at the instance of the Lord Chancellor and his department against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that in the selection of a special adviser he contravened the provisions in respect of the first respondent, as she now is, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and in respect of the second respondent, as she now is, both that Act and the Race Relations Act 1976. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Race Relations Act 1976 [ Bailii ] Â The Lord Chancellor, The Lord Chancellors Department v J Coker, M Osamor Times, 23 January 2001; EAT/820/99; EAT/819/99 17 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Employment, Administrative A special adviser was not a civil servant subject to the normal rules governing such, and nor was the appointment of that adviser. The appellant had chosen his special adviser without advertisement, and had chosen someone well known to him. The requirement was not only that someone be appointed who was known to the Chancellor, but also that it be someone in whom he had established trust and confidence. Equally the question of disproportionate impact was broader than the likely impact between men and women. That test had to be judged as within the pool of people who might satisfy the requirements of the post. EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring Discrimination Sex Discrimination Act 1975 Â The Lord Chancellor and Another v Coker and Another [2001] UKEAT 820_99_1701; [2001] Emp LR 272; [2001] ICR 507; [2001] IRLR 116 17 Jan 2001 EAT Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination, Discrimination Appeal at the instance of the Lord Chancellor and his department against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that in the selection of a special adviser he contravened the provisions in respect of the first respondent, as she now is, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and in respect of the second respondent, as she now is, both that Act and the Race Relations Act 1976. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Race Relations Act 1976 [ Bailii ] Â Chapman v United Kingdom; similar Times, 30 January 2001; 27238/95; (2001) 33 EHRR 18; [2001] ECHR 43; (2001) 33 EHRR 479; (2001) 33 EHRR 399 18 Jan 2001 ECHR Planning, Discrimination, Human Rights The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement notice were upheld by the inspector. Held: The needs of gypsies for accommodation, and the refusal of permission to locate caravans on land purchased by them for this purpose, was not a sufficient infringement of their right to family life to outweigh the needs of society as reflected in the planning laws. The caravans were occupied as an integral part of their ethnic identity, but the planning laws required a large margin of appreciation to be afforded. to a national government. The interference was proportionate. "It is important to recall that Article 8 does not in terms give a right to be provided with a home. Nor does any of the jurisprudence acknowledge such a right. While it is clearly desirable that every human being has a place where he or she can live in dignity and which he or she can call home, there are unfortunately in the Contracting States many persons who have no home. Whether the State provides funds to enable everyone to have a home is a matter for political not judicial decision." "When considering whether a requirement that the individual leave his or her home is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, it is highly relevant whether or not the home was established unlawfully. If the home was lawfully established this factor would self evidently be something which would weigh against the legitimacy of requiring the individual to move. Conversely, if the establishment of a home in a particular place was unlawful, the position of the individual objecting to an order to move is less strong. The court will be slow to grant protection to those who, in conscious defiance of the prohibitions of the law, establish a home on an environmentally protected site. For the court to do otherwise would be to encourage illegal action to the detriment of the protection of the environmental rights of other people in the community." European Convention on Human Rights 6.1 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Eldridge, Barbican Car Hire Ltd v L Zhang EAT/543/99 19 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â M J Eldridge Barbican Car Hire Ltd v L Zhang EAT/543/99 19 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Madden v Preferred Technical Group - Cha Limited, Michael Guest EAT/1215/99 21 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â Madden v Preferred Technical Group - CHA Limited, Guest EAT/1215/99; [2001] UKEAT 1215_99_2201 22 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â K Sharma E Evans v Liverpool City Council EAT/1263/98; [2001] UKEAT 1263_98_2201 22 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J Altman Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â F Eldewiny v City Centre Restaurant (Uk) Ltd and others EAT/1185/99 22 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Lambert Clarke v Leroy Parkes, Securitas UK Ltd EAT/954/99 22 Jan 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Sharma, Evans v Liverpool City Council EAT/1263/98 22 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J Altman Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Lambert Clarke v Leroy Parkes Securitas UK Ltd EAT/954/99 22 Jan 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Burke QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â F Eldewiny v City Centre Restaurant (Uk) Ltd and others EAT/1185/99 22 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to Feelings Â Eldewiny v City Centre Restaurant (UK) Ltd and others [2001] UKEAT 1185_99_2201 22 Jan 2001 EAT Lindsay P J Employment, Discrimination Appeal against dismissal of race discrimination claim [ Bailii ] Â Mensah, Application for Permission; Mensah v Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 98 26 Jan 2001 CA Litigation Practice, Discrimination, Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 74 29 Jan 2001 CA Mummery LJ Employment, Discrimination Renewed application for permission to appeal. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ms Mary Fu v London Borough of Camden EAT/1366/99 30 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J Altman Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Conoco Ltd v Kevan Booth EAT/83/00; [2001] UKEAT 83_00_3001 30 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Collins Cbe Discrimination, Employment EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant's premises, and the employer was advised to remove him from safety critical positions. They made attempts to find alternate work, but the claimant said the attempts were inadequate, and the tribunal agreed. Held: Where the potential for alternative employment lay for practical purposes exclusively within the knowledge of the employer, the burden of proof is on the employer to satisfy the tribunal that there was no alternative employment, available in the reasonably acceptable future for this employee. The company had not discharged this burden, and their appeal failed. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 6 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Mary Fu v London Borough of Camden EAT/1366/99 30 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J Altman Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Â Varey v United Kingdom; ECHR 30-Jan-2001 - Times, 30 January 2001; 26662/95; [2000] ECHR 692 Â FU v London Borough of Camden [2001] UKEAT 1366_99_3001 30 Jan 2001 EAT Altman HHJ Employment, Discrimination "This appeal concerns the application of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to the situation where an employer is considering dismissal, or ill health retirement, due to the incapacity of the employee resulting in his or her long-term absence from work either in the past or anticipated for the future." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [ Bailii ] Â Hina v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise EAT/61/00 31 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Collins Cbe Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Hina v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise EAT/61/00 31 Jan 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Collins Cbe Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Newnham, Simms and Others, Parker v Transco Plc, EAT/126/00; EAT/125/00 31 Jan 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â F Neckles v Yorkshire Rider Ltd T/A First Huddersfield EAT/517/00 1 Feb 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â F Neckles v Yorkshire Rider Ltd T/A First Huddersfield EAT/517/00 1 Feb 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EAT ] Â Vogler v British Dental Association [2001] UKEAT 1307_99_0202; EAT/1307/99 2 Feb 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Lambert v Lowery and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 138 2 Feb 2001 CA Discrimination Renewed application for leave to appeal. Held: No error of law had been shown. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ahmed v London Borough of Hackney and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 164 6 Feb 2001 CA Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Lewisham v Orlene Henry EAT/153/00 7 Feb 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â London Borough of Lewisham v Ms Orlene Henry EAT/153/00 7 Feb 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A Gill and others v Tulip International (Uk) Cooked Meats Division Ltd EAT/114/00 8 Feb 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â A Gill and others v Tulip International (Uk) Cooked Meats Division Ltd EAT/114/00 8 Feb 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Â Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2); HL 8-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 09 February 2001; [2001] UKHL 5; [2001] 2 WLR 448; [2001] ICR 217; [2001] Emp LR 256; [2001] 3 All ER 947; [2001] 2 AC 455; [2001] IRLR 237; [2001] Pens LR 39; [2001] OPLR 1; [2001] 1 CMLR 46 Â Â Regina v White; CACD 14-Feb-2001 - Times, 13 March 2001; [2001] EWCA Crim 216; [2001] 1 WLR 1352 Â Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Harley [2001] UKEAT 518_00_1902; EAT/518/00 19 Feb 2001 EAT Charles J Employment, Discrimination Appeal against a finding that a claim of disability discrimination was in time. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Fife Council v McPhee EAT/750/00 21 Feb 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination EAT The council appealed against a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, subject to a deduction of 50% for the claimant's contribution. He had been found to have breached a council policy for social workers handling client money. The tribunal found that had it made adequate adjustments, the claimant would have been better able to comply with the policy. Held: The tribunal had applied sections of the 1995 Act not in force at the time of the events, and the decision could not stand, and the case could olny be remitted to the tribunal. Had the legislation been in place it would have stood, but the award for discrimination would also have had to be reduced by 50%, and "We would not suggest that in some cases, a finding of contributory fault in relation to a successful claim for unfair dismissal necessarily would bear on a quite separate claim for discrimination whether on race or disability grounds at the instance of the same employee in respect of the same employment. However, where the two are inextricably bound up as in here, inasmuch that it is the employee's conduct that led to dismissal but the employer's failure, it is said, to look after his interests in relation to the Act that rendered the dismissal unfair, it is to be observed at once that these two elements are totally intertwined. Logic therefore dictates that if there is to be a 50% contribution in relation to unfair dismissal, the same must apply in respect of discrimination having regard to the fact that in terms of section 8(3) of the Act, as Counsel pointed out, compensation in disability discrimination cases is to be assessed as a claim for reparation at common law where contributory negligence or contributory fault is a highly relevant element, if applicable." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â O Ayovuare, the London Borough of Greenwich v the London Borough of Greenwich, O Ayovuare EAT/76/00; EAT/206/00 22 Feb 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â O Ayovuare, the London Borough of Greenwich v the London Borough of Greenwich, O Ayovuare EAT/206/00 , EAT/76/00 , EAT/3 22 Feb 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â B A Cootes v John Lewis Plc EAT/1414/00 27 Feb 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â B A Cootes v John Lewis Plc EAT/1414/00 27 Feb 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Rhoden-Burke v Lambeth and Another [2001] UKEAT 1060_00_0103 1 Mar 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination The claimant had taken maternity leave under which she had been entitled to return up to five years later. The Council transferred its workforce to Capita, and she now said that the Council and Capita had failed to comply with the contractual and statutory obligations. Employment Rights Act 1996 [ Bailii ] Â Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solicitors [2001] UKEAT 1116_00_0103 1 Mar 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination Disability Discrimination - Disability. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Juliana Ojinnaka v Sheffield College EAT/0201/00 6 Mar 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Ms Juliana Ojinnaka v Sheffield College EAT/0201/00 6 Mar 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1303_00_0703 7 Mar 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Tyagi v BBC World Service [2001] EWCA Civ 549 8 Mar 2001 CA Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Taiwo Lana v Positive Action Training In Housing (London) Limited EAT/245/00 15 Mar 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Ms Taiwo Lana v Positive Action Training In Housing (London) Limited EAT/245/00 15 Mar 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Helen Percy v An Order and Judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Dated 22 March 1999 [2001] ScotCS 65; 2001 SC 757 20 Mar 2001 SCS Lord President and Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Caplan Scotland, Employment, Discrimination, Employment, Ecclesiastical Mrs Percy was a minister in the church. She appealed rejection of her claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. Held: the court considered whether Ms Percy was employed by the Board of National Mission in terms of a 'contract personally to execute any work or labour'. After reviewing the authorities the Lord President enunciated a principle that where an appointment was made to a recognised form of ministry within the Church of Scotland, and where the duties of that ministry were essentially spiritual, it was to be presumed there was no intention that the arrangements made with the minister would give rise to obligations enforceable in the civil law. The presumption was rebuttable. In the present case the Lord President was not persuaded the parties intended to create relations enforceable in the civil courts. There was a rebuttable presumption that: "where the appointment was being made to a recognised form of ministry within the Church and where the duties of that ministry would be essentially spiritual, there would be no intention that the arrangements made with the minister would give rise to obligations enforceable in the civil law." 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ] Â Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls' School and Oxfordshire County Council Times, 03 April 2001; Gazette, 07 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 385 21 Mar 2001 CA Schiemann, Latham LJJ, Sir Christopher Slade Employment, Discrimination The local authority's redundancy policy required the school first to choose for redundancy those on fixed term temporary contracts. The applicant's contract had not been renewed, and she had been replaced by a teacher with lesser qualifications. The policy adversely affect more women than men and was indirect discrimination, and it was for the school to justify following it. It had to show that the policy met some need, but that question was never addressed. The school had to show the need in this situation to use the policy, not that the policy was widely followed. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b) (i) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Dr J Lynn v Rokeby School Board of Governors London Borough of Newham Secretary of State for Education and Employment EAT/86/99; [2001] UKEAT 86_99_2103 21 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Ali v First Quench Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 446 22 Mar 2001 CA Peter Gibson LJ Employment, Discrimination Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of complaint of race discrimination and unfair dismissal. Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a) [ Bailii ] Â Â Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another; CA 22-Mar-2001 - Times, 04 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 405; [2001] IRLR 377; A1/2000/0293; [2001] ICR 847 Â The Ministry of Defence v C Bloomfield-Evans EAT/63/99 EAT/1/00 23 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Jurisdiction. [ EATn ] Â S K Ganase v Kent Community Housing Trust EAT/1231/99 23 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â S K Ganase v Kent Community Housing Trust EAT/1231/99 23 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â The Ministry of Defence v C Bloomfield-Evans EAT/1/00; EAT/63/99; [2001] UKEAT 63_99_2303 23 Mar 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Jurisdiction 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others; CA 23-Mar-2001 - Times, 03 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 529; [2002] ICR 1189 Â Â Hallam and Another v Cheltenham Borough Council and Others; HL 27-Mar-2001 - Times, 27 March 2001; Gazette, 24 May 2001; [2001] ICR 408; [2001] BLGR 278; [2001] IRLR 312; [2001] 1 WLR 655; [2001] UKHL 15 Â D Wilding v British Telecom Plc EAT/901/99 2 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EATn ] Â Wilding v British Telecom Plc EAT/901/99; [2001] UKEAT 901_99_0204 2 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination, Damages EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd, D Crompton, A Cuthill v P Karam EAT/289/01 6 Apr 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Credit Suisse First Boston (Europe) Ltd D Crompton A Cuthill v P Karam EAT/289/01; [2001] UKEAT 289_01_0604 6 Apr 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to Feelings 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Nikolay Ivanov v Adtranz Signal (Uk) Ltd EAT/0220/00 9 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Nikolay Ivanov v Adtranz Signal (Uk) Ltd EAT/0220/00 9 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â C Solloway v HPC Engineering Plc EAT/1192/99; [2001] UKEAT 1192_99_2304 23 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments [ Bailii ] Â C Solloway v Hpc Engineering Plc EAT/1192/99 23 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â HM Prison Service v Salmon [2001] UKEAT 21_00_2404; EAT/21/00 24 Apr 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to Feelings [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Bradley v Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT/253/00 27 Apr 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Bradley v Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT/253/00 27 Apr 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Deman v Association of University Teachers [2001] UKEAT 746_99_3004 30 Apr 2001 EAT Discrimination Preliminary ex parte hearing to decide whether appeal was to go ahead to full hearing. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â P Lee v Lancashire County Council EAT/703/99; [2001] UKEAT 703_99_3004 30 Apr 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Â Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security; CA 2-May-2001 - Times, 17 May 2001; [2001] 2 CMLR 51; [2001] EWCA Civ 624; [2001] ICR 966 Â Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2001] NICA 23 3 May 2001 CANI Carswell LCJ Northern Ireland, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 697 3 May 2001 CA Keene LJ Employment, Discrimination Application for leave to appeal - refused. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc Times, 12 June 2001; Gazette, 14 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 634; [2001] 2 CMLR 44; [2001] IRLR 460; [2001] ICR 1176; [2001] Emp LR 646 3 May 2001 CA Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Mantell And Lord Justice Buxton Discrimination, Employment A sex discrimination claim involving a claim by an employee for damages for sexual harassment, had to be made during the period of employment. An employer's failure to deal properly with an allegation of sexual harassment could itself be a detriment under the Act and Directive. The fact that the statutes against sex discrimination and race discrimination might have some disparities did not mean, that for this purpose at least, they could not be read similarly. The EAT had therefore been correct to follow the decision in Adekeye in this case. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary emplaw, 03 May 2001; [2001] NIECA 18 3 May 2001 CANI Discrimination, Employment, Northern Ireland Emplaw In sex and race discrimination cases an employee must generally be able to show that he or she has been treated less favourably than a person of the opposite sex who is in comparable circumstances. If there is no such comparator then in the absence of some evidence pointing to the conclusion that a person of the other sex would have been treated differently there cannot be discrimination even if the treatment afforded to the complaining employee was " unsatisfactory or even harsh". Outline facts:- Ms Joan Shamoon was a Chief Inspector in the Royal Ulster Constabulary with 22 years service. After a complaint from two constables about the way in which she conducted appraisals of their performance, her superior officer removed her responsibilities in respect of staff appraisals. Also an inspector was appointed to assist with her administrative duties generally. She claimed that she had been singled out from other Chief Inspectors who continued to perform such appraisal duties, that the appointment of an inspector to help her undermined her position and that this was all unfavourable treatment afforded to her because she was a woman. Ms Shammon won her sex discrimination case at the industrial tribunal and the Police appealed to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. Decision:- The Police won the appeal. The main point made by the NI Court of Appeal in overruling the decision of the industrial tribunal was that, in their view, Ms Shamoon had not suffered any " detriment", quoting with approval from the EAT's judgment in Coker & Osamor v The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine 2001 ICR 507 that "there has to be some physical or economic consequence as a result of discrimination to constitute a detriment in this context, which is material and substantial". An unjustified sense of grievance could not amount to a detriment. Although this was enough to dispose of the case nevertheless the NI Court of Appeal went on to consider other issues. One of these was the question of who were valid comparators. The Court of Appeal held that there were none in this case as no complaints had been made about appraisals conducted by the other Chief Inspectors and that "it had not been established that the RUC had treated her less favourably than it would have treated any other officer in the same circumstances" Editor's note: The report of this case suggests that no reference was made to Mishriki v West Midlands Health Authority 2000, CA 20th June 2000 (unreported) which provides support for the contrary proposition that if no valid comparator can be found it would be legitimate to make a comparison with a hypothetical comparator. Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (1976 No 1042 NI) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Chief Constable of the Kent Constabulary v J Kufeji EAT/1135/00 4 May 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A Mckenzie v East Sussex County Council [2001] UKEAT 1346_00_0405 4 May 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1996 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Chief Constable of the Kent Constabulary v J Kufeji EAT/1135/00 4 May 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Oko-Jaja v London Borough of Lewisham EAT/417/00 8 May 2001 EAT Mrs Recorder Cox QC Discrimination, Employment, Costs The applicant had complained of disability discrimination, and failed. He had been ordered to pay a sum towards the costs of the respondent. He appealed that order. He had previously issued a complaint, and lost that complaint, being warned then of the possibility of such an order. This second complaint was of victimisation, but the decision makers knew nothing of his first complaint. His complaint was dismissed. The tribunal recognised the unreasonableness of his complaint, and the substantial cost to the respondent, and awarded £250 costs. The respondent cross appealed, saying that the award should not have been so limited. Held: In making that decision the tribunal had taken into account a suggestion that the appellant had had all relevant evidence available to him from an early stage. The nature of victimisation complaints is that they are difficult to prove, and it may often be proper for a complainant to rely upon the hope of cross examination. EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunals Constitution and Procedure Regulations 1993 Sch 1 r 12 1 Cites Â D Whittle v Boss Group Ltd EAT/995/99 8 May 2001 EAT His Honour Judge David Pugsley Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â D Whittle v Boss Group Ltd EAT/995/99 8 May 2001 EAT His Honour Judge David Pugsley Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Ayobiojo v Camden [2001] UKEAT 210_00_0905 9 May 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Mata Estevez v Spain 56501/00; [2001] ECHR 896 10 May 2001 ECHR Human Rights, Discrimination The claimant complained that the state did not give proper recognition of his relationship with his deceased same sex partner. Held: The court noted the growing tendency in a number of European states towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals. The court considered that, despite this, there was still little common ground between the contracting states. "As regards respect for family life the court said: "As regards establishing whether the decision in question concerns the sphere of 'family life' within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, according to the established case-law of the Convention institutions, long-term homosexual relationships between two men do not fall within the scope of the right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that, despite the growing tendency in a number of European states towards a legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, this is, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, an area where the contracting states 'still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation'. Accordingly, the applicant's relationship with his late partner 'does not fall within Article 8 in so far as that provision protects the right to respect for family life'. despite the growing tendency in a number of European States towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, this is, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, an area in which they still enjoy a wide margin of appreciation . . . Accordingly, the applicant's relationship with his late partner does not fall within article 8 insofar as that provision protects the right to respect for human life." and "a legitimate aim, which is the protection of the family based on marriage bonds (see, mutatis mutandis, the Marcks v Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A No. 31.¶ 40). The court considers that the difference in treatment found can be considered to fall within the state's margin of appreciation . . ." European Convention on Human Rights 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Crofton v Yeboah EAT/1352/98; EAT/475/00; [2001] UKEAT 475_00_1605 16 May 2001 EAT Burton J Discrimination After a very long hearing, the appellant had been found guilty of race discrimination in his making of allegations about the behaviour of the respondent in failing to investigate corruption within Hackney London Borough Council. Held: The first instance tribunal had failed to take account of evidence offered by the appellant to a degree which could only be described as perverse, and the decisions could not stand. The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for rehearing, with the expressed hope that a settlement could be reached. The difficulty in establishing perversity on the part of an Employment Tribunal was re-emphasised; an overwhelming case must be established. EAT Race Discrimination - Direct EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. Race Relations Act 1976 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â N C Jackson v East Sussex County Council EAT/1377/99 16 May 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â N C Jackson v East Sussex County Council EAT/1377/99 16 May 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â N C Jackson v East Sussex County Council EAT/1377/99 16 May 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Cosgrove v Messrs Caesar and Howie [2001] UKEAT 1432_00_1705; [2001] Emp LR 1285; [2001] IRLR 653 17 May 2001 EAT Lindsay J P Employment, Discrimination Appeal against dismissal of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. [ Bailii ] Â Ahmed v London Borough of Hackney and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 812 18 May 2001 CA Sedley LJ Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â P Edwards v London Borough of Waltham Forest , Peter Kilgariff, Richard Simmonds EAT/317/00 21 May 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect Â P Edwards v London Borough of Waltham Forest, Peter Kilgariff, Richard Simmonds EAT/317/00 21 May 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â D'Souza vLambeth [2001] UKEAT 0395_99_2205 22 May 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Â Allen v Oliver Group Plc and Another; CA 24-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 806 Â Â Anyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another; HL 24-May-2001 - Times, 27 March 2001; Gazette, 24 May 2001; [2001] ELR 511; [2001] UKHL 14; [2001] 2 All ER 353; [2001] 1 WLR 638; [2001] ICR 391; [2001] IRLR 305; [2001] Emp LR 420 Â Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT/1044/00; [2001] UKEAT 1044_00_2505; [2001] ICR 1084 25 May 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Langstaff QC R said: "The question whether the impact of the impairment is upon normal day-to-day activities is, of course, judged by asking whether or not any of the abilities, capacities, or capabilities (whichever expression is adopted) referred to in Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to the 1995 Act has been affected. If it is, then it must be almost inevitable that there will be some adverse effect upon normal day-to-day activities. An impairment of manual dexterity – to take that as an example – is almost bound to affect a myriad of individual activities, not all of which could satisfactorily be listed even by the most able and eloquent of applicants. Assuming for the moment, without deciding (because the contrary interpretation is not necessary for the resolution of this case), that an impairment in any of the capacities listed at Paragraph 4(1) is not in itself determinative of the question of impact on normal day-to-day activities, but that the impairment must be shown to have some such effect, it nonetheless seems to us that it will only be in the most exceptional case that any such impairment will not do so. If there were some impairment that affected the concert pianist only in his ability to manipulate the keys of his piano, it would affect his manual dexterity but would not affect normal day-to-day activities within the meaning of the Act: but it is difficult to contemplate what the nature of an impairment might be that had such a selective effect. In most normal cases it is likely that the answer to the question "Has a Paragraph 4(1) ability been affected?" will also answer the question whether there has been an impact on normal day-to-day activities." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Â Donald D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; CA 25-May-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 794 Â D and Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the European Union C-122/99; [2001] EUECJ C-122/99 31 May 2001 ECJ European, Discrimination Europa The intention of the Community legislature was to grant entitlement to the household allowance under Article 1(2)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations only to married couples. Only the legislature can, where appropriate, adopt measures to alter that situation, for example by amending provisions of the Staff Regulations. The fact that, in a limited number of Member States, a registered partnership is assimilated, although incompletely, to marriage cannot have the consequence that, by mere interpretation, persons whose legal status is distinct from that of marriage can be covered by the term married official as used in the Staff Regulations. According to the definition generally accepted by the Member States, the term marriage means a union between two persons of the opposite sex. Since 1989 an increasing number of Member States have introduced, alongside marriage, statutory arrangements granting legal recognition to various forms of union between partners of the same sex or of the opposite sex and conferring on such unions certain effects which, both between the partners and as regards third parties, are the same as or comparable to those of marriage. It is clear, however, that apart from their great diversity, such arrangements for registering relationships between couples not previously recognised in law are regarded in the Member States concerned as being distinct from marriage. In such cirumstances the Community judicature cannot interpret the Staff Regulations in such a way that legal situations distinct from marriage are treated in the same way as marriage. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â University of Glasgow v Rahul Jindal EAT/74/01 31 May 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Information, Employment The University appealed orders made for the discovery of documents. The claimant asserted race discrimination, and sought the references which the University had said had informed its decision on the appointment complained of. Held: A difficult balance was to be found, but where the respondents rely upon particular documents, the interest of fairness normally dictate that the applicant should have sight of them, and be aware of their authorship. The right test is not only relevance, but also whether it was necessary to disclose the material in order to dispose fairly of the proceedings. EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal 1 Cites Â Â Post Office v Jones; CA 5-Jun-2001 - Times, 05 June 2001; [2001] ICR 805 ; [2001] EWCA Civ 558; [2001] Emp LR 527; [2001] IRLR 384 Â Dr A Jiad v BBC World Service and Others, Hassan Muawad, Gamon Mclellan EAT/1007/00 5 Jun 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites Â Dr A Jiad v BBC World Service and Others, Hassan Muawad, Gamon Mclellan EAT/1007/00 5 Jun 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Dr A Jiad v BBC World Service and Others, Hassan Muawad, Gamon McLellan EAT/1007/00 5 Jun 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Citers Â Law Hospitals NHS Trust v Rush [2001] IRLR 611; 2001 GWD 21-810; [2001] ScotCS 149; 2002 SC 24; 2002 SLT 7 13 Jun 2001 SCS Lord Kirkwood Scotland, Employment, Discrimination The claimant had said that the effect of her dyslexia was to inhibit her career progress. Held:It was right for a tribunal to have regard to how an applicant could carry out duties at work in deciding whether she was within the Disability Discrimination Act. Evidence of how the claimant carries out normal day-to-day activities while at work is relevant evidence. However, on the facts, the decision that the claimant was disabled should not be disturbed. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Hounslow vBhatt EAT/337/99 13 Jun 2001 EAT Miss Recorder Elizabeth Slade QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â The London Borough of Hounslow v Bhatt EAT/337/99 13 Jun 2001 EAT Miss Recorder Elizabeth Slade Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â Dr (Mrs) U A Uruakpa v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons EAT/1074/98 18 Jun 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J Altman Human Rights, Discrimination, Health Professions, Employment The applicant appealed an order striking out her complaint of race discrimination as hopeless. She sought recognition as a veterinary surgeon. Her claim had been dismissed because, under the section the College exercised a statutory power. She asserted that the regulations gave a wide discretion to the College to exempt individuals from all or part of the qualification procedures. It was held that the discretion only applied to those who already held one or more of the qualifications which were recognised. She claimed also that the tribunal system denied her the possibility of equality of arms, and therefore a fair hearing under art 6. The EAT held that the tribunal system was designed to be informal, and Chairmen are specifically required to give assistance to lay parties. There was no breach of that right. EAT Human Rights - Veterinary Surgeon (Examination of Commonwealth and Foreign Candidates) Regulations 1967 Sch para 5 - Race Relations Act 1976 41 Â Brunnhofer v Bank der Osterreichischen Postparkasse AG C-381/99; [2001] ECR 4961; [2001] EUECJ C-381/99; [2001] 1RLR 271 26 Jun 2001 ECJ European, Discrimination Europa Equal pay for men and women - Conditions of application - Difference in pay - Definition of 'the same work and 'work of equal value - Classification, under a collective agreement, in the same job category - Burden of proof - Objective justification for unequal pay - Effectiveness of a specific employee's work. Ms Brunnhofer worked in an Austrian bank and claimed equal pay with a male colleague. Both were classified under a collective agreement in the same category but from the time of his recruitment the male received an individual supplement higher than the supplement received by Ms Brunnhofer. The Bank claimed that there were rejected reasons for the difference in the supplements. According to the Bank the male comparator carried out more important functions than Ms Brunnhofer who is not authorized to enter into binding commitments on behalf of the Bank, and also the quality of their work was said to be different. Held: "the fundamental principle laid down in Article 119 of the Treaty and elaborated by the Directive precludes unequal pay as between men and women for the same job or work of equal value, whatever the mechanism which produces such inequality, unless the difference in pay is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination linked to the difference in sex . . . " A finding of inequality in pay between the appellant and her main comparator would not be sufficient basis for concluding that discrimination prohibited by Community Law exists. Firstly, it must be ascertained whether the employees concerned were performing work of equal value and secondly “the differences in treatment prohibited by article 119 are exclusively those based on the difference in sex of the employees concerned – see Jenkins”. The ECJ then set out a stage by stage approach with the onus firstly on the employee to prove that her pay was less than that of her comparator and that her work was the same or of equal value so that “prime facie she is the victim of discrimination which can be explained only by the difference in sex” 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â D D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT/360/96 27 Jun 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â D D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT/360/96 27 Jun 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â D D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT/360/96 27 Jun 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2001] NIECA 31 28 Jun 2001 CANI Northern Ireland, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â C Willie v Companies House EAT/652/00 3 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â C Willie v Companies House EAT/652/00 3 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Von Goetz v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust EAT/1395/97; [2001] UKEAT 1395_97_0407; EAT/625/99 4 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (T/A Leisure Link) [2001] UKEAT 1516_00_0907 9 Jul 2001 EAT Douglas Brown J Discrimination Preliminary hearing - claim for race discrimination. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Graham v Plumstead Law Centre [2001] EWCA Civ 1177 9 Jul 2001 CA Henry LJ Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Â Price v United Kingdom; ECHR 10-Jul-2001 - Times, 13 August 2001; 33394/96; [2001] ECHR 453; [2001] ECHR 458; [2011] ECHR 2270 Â A v London Borough of Hounslow EAT/1155/98 10 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Â Harvest Town Circle Ltd v Rutherford; EAT 10-Jul-2001 - Times, 21 August 2001; EAT/1128/99; [2002] ICR 123; [2001] UKEAT 1128_99_1007 Â Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1182 10 Jul 2001 CA Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â A v London Borough of Hounslow EAT/1155/98 10 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Harvest Town Circle Ltd v J Rutherford EAT/1128/99 10 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â A v London Borough of Hounslow EAT/1155/98 11 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â A v London Borough of Hounslow EAT/1155/98 11 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Marshall Ma v Shasonic Ltd EAT/368/99 16 Jul 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination The appellant's allegations of racial discrimination had been dismissed. He argued that the reasons given were inadequate. Because such claims are often unusually sensitive to the particular facts, it can be more important for the tribunal to deal properly with the facts found in its reasons. Where one person's evidence is preferred to another's, explanations should be given. In this case the reasons were inadequate, and the case was remitted to a different tribunal. EAT Unfair Dismissal - Contributory Fault Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a) 4(2)(c) 1 Cites Â R Plettell v British Aerospace (Operations) Ltd EAT/446/00 , EAT/678/00 19 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â R Plettell v British Aerospace (Operations) Ltd EAT/678/00; EAT/446/00 19 Jul 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Employment, Discrimination The applicant had applied for a position, and alleged that once his racial origin became known, he was wrongly told there was no position for him. The tribunal had failed to give a consistent view of whether the company had known of these origins at the time the decision was made, and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal. EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Chaudhary v The Senate of the Royal College of Surgeons Of Great Britain and Ireland and Others, NHS Executive Headquarters, Department of Health, NHS Executive North West, The Postgraduate Dean North West Deanery etc EAT/975/99; [2001] UKEAT 975_99_1907 19 Jul 2001 EAT Miss Recorder Elizabeth Slade QC Discrimination, Health Professions EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Â Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd; EAT 20-Jul-2001 - [2001] UKEAT 244_00_0803 Â Department of Social Security v J Dunford EAT/0373/00 30 Jul 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination The extended reasons given by a Tribunal, must be sufficient to allow a party to assess whether the Tribunal has fallen into an error of law. In this case, it was not clear whether the applicant had been found to be disabled, under section 1 or section 2 of the Act, and the reasons were therefore inadequate. EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Appeal Tribunal Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Â Pearce v Mayfield School Gazette, 27 September 2001; Times, 09 October 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1347; [2001] Emp LR 1112; [2002] ICR 198; [2002] ELR 16; [2001] IRLR 669 31 Jul 2001 CA Henry LJ, Judge LJ, Hale LJ Discrimination, Human Rights, Employment The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the school were no responsible for it. The 1998 Act had come into effect. Held: The actions were discriminatory, but the 1975 Act operated against discrimination on the grounds of sex, not sexual orientation. The argument that the abuse was gender specific was insufficient alone to make is discrimination for sex: "The crucial distinction between the sexual harassment cases and others is that the disliked woman is being subjected to abuse of a sexual nature whereas an equally disliked man would be subject to a different sort of abuse. This is a difference of treatment based on sex: and most people would have little difficulty in deciding that abuse of a sexual nature was "less favourable" than other types of abuse. But if the true comparator is a male homosexual, and a male homosexual would have been subject to the same sort of sexual harassment, albeit using different words, then it cannot be said that this is less favourable treatment on grounds of sex." The Court went on to examine the effect of the 1998 Act. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Human Rights Act 1998 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Agnes Sithole v City and Hackney Primary Care Trust (Formerlycommunity Services NHS Trust) EAT/0248/00 2 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Employment, Discrimination The applicant had been employed as a bank nurse, subject to requirements not to work back to back shifts. She had worked such shifts. She complained of race discrimination, and on then being disciplined for working the shifts, she alleged sex and race discrimination. Her allegations were rejected by the ET, and she appealed, also alleging bias in the tribunal. A previous employee had not been treated differently, since the employers had, following that case seen the need to clarify procedures, and that had been done. The first complaint was not a protected act since the employer had not known of it when the decision was made to dismiss. There appeared no error of law in the tribunal's decision. EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â Agnes Sithole v City and Hackney Primary Care Trust (Formerly Community Services NHS Trust) EAT/0248/00 2 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â C Willie v Companies House EAT/652/00 3 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Discrimination The appellant had applied for a secondment as a Registrar of Companies of Anguilla. The appointment was made with others by the Respondent, his current employers, as agent for the government of Anguilla. He alleged race discrimination and victimisation. The respondent replied that since the appointment was abroad, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction. It was clear that the case raised several issues of law, and it was not possible from the reasons provided to divine how these questions had been determined and applied by the tribunal. It was necessary for the matter to be remitted, but because of the length of time since the original hearing, it should be to a fresh tribunal. EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect Race Relations Act 1976 4(2) 32(2) Â A P Blackledge v London General Transport Services Ltd EAT/1073/00; [2001] UKEAT 1073_00_0308 3 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Nelson Discrimination The appellant appealed against a finding that he was not disabled under the Act. He had been a soldier in action and many years later, he suffered flash backs and claimed post traumatic stress disorder. Doctors differed in their diagnosis, and in the standards they used, ICD-10 and DSM-IV. The tribunal failed properly to recognise the differences in the classifications, and in the standings of the two criteria, and the decision was fatally flawed. It is the not the function of the medical practitioner to give an opinion on either the adverse effect of day to day activities or whether any such effect is substantial EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Blackledge v London General Transport Services Ltd EAT/1073/00 3 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Nelson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â C Willie v Companies House EAT/652/00 3 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Jasbeer Rooproy v M Rollins-Elliott, Manor House Hospitals Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1486_99_0607 7 Aug 2001 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Discrimination, Employment The Applicant had worked for the respondents. The respondents were closing down the nursing home, and all staff were being made redundant and were to be given open references. The applicant's claim for race discrimination had been heard but no decision given. The first respondent gave a reference but referred to the outstanding proceedings. The reference was not received until after her employment had come to an end. She had in fact been treated less favourably, and that arose directly as a consequence of the previous proceedings for race discrimination. The motive of the respondent was not to be taken into account. There is a two part test. Was the applicant treated less favourably, and if so, was this a consequence of her complaint of race discrimination. Race Relations Act 1976 2(1)(a) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd EAT/1487/99; EAT/1385/99 28 Aug 2001 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Employment, Discrimination Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological 'overlay', where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological disability. The employees appealed a refusal that they be considered to suffer a disability. "Impairment", has to mean some damage, defect, disorder or disease compared with a person having a full set of physical and mental equipment in normal condition. "physical or mental impairment" refers to a person having something wrong with them physically, or something wrong with them mentally. EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â Callagan v Glasgow City Council [2001] UKEAT 43_01_2808; [2002] Emp LR 24; [2001] IRLR 724 28 Aug 2001 EAT Lord Johnston Employment, Scotland, Discrimination EAT The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his application both in respect of allegations of disability discrimination in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and unfair dismissal. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [ Bailii ] Â John Dexter Callagan v Glasgow City Council EAT/43/01 28 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Fiona Daly v Monsoon Accessorize EAT/219/01 30 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Fiona Daly v Monsoon Accessorize EAT/219/01 30 Aug 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Scotland, Discrimination The applicant appealed a decision that she did not suffer an impairment within the Act. The test applied was correct, namely whether the applicant had a mental impairment did substantially affect her normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal had made a careful examination of the evidence, and found some at least of the applicant's evidence not credible. The decision was not to be interfered with. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 1 Cites Â Lockwood v Crawley Warren Group Plc [2001] UKEAT 55_01_0409 4 Sep 2001 EAT Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Inverclyde Council v Stanley Wilson and 10 Others 5 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Scotland, Discrimination The complainants were local authority manual workers. The 'blue book' governing their terms required contracts to be for 37 hours unless justified otherwise, and for hours above that to be paid at overtime rates. These employees had contracts at 39 hours. They claimed that the additional 2 hours should have been paid at such rates. The authority claimed that the agreement with those workers was a variation of the Blue Book conditions. The particular overruled the general. The employees contended there was no conflict, but only an underpayment. Held: There was no evidence of variation of the conditions, and the authority's appeal failed. Employment Rights Act 1996 13 1 Cites Â Martin v Goldsobel EAT/0381/00; [2001] UKEAT 0381_00_0609 6 Sep 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Underhill QC Discrimination, Employment The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work. Held: To establish sex discrimination a woman does not need to show that her pregnancy was the only cause, or even the main cause, of her being dismissed; it is enough if it was an effective cause. The Tribunal misdirected itself that the Appellant had to establish both the test for automatic unfair dismissal and the test for sex discrimination, and the reasons had failed to deal in sufficient detail with the factual disputes. EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring Discrimination Employment Rights Act 1996 99 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Jabbal v Consignia Plc [2001] UKEAT 377_01_1109 11 Sep 2001 EAT Langstaff QC Rec Employment, Discrimination Race Relations Act 1976 [ Bailii ] Â Ms B Barlow v London Borough of Southwark EAT/536/00 13 Sep 2001 EAT Miss Recorder Slade Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â London Clubs Management Ltd v Hood EAT/184/00; [2001] IRLR 719; [2001] UKEAT 184_00_1809 18 Sep 2001 EAT Miss Recorder Elizabeth Slade QC Discrimination, Employment The employee developed a series of headaches. He was off work for many weeks, and the company cut his sick pay. He claimed disability discrimination. The company claimed he was not being paid because he was not at work, the company having exercised its discretion to stop payment of sick pay generally. The correct question was whether he was refused sick pay for a reason related to his disability, on the facts found by the Tribunal. The tribunal having found that the company had made that decision, the decision that he had not been paid because of his sickness was perverse. "In our judgment, the natural meaning of 'scheme or arrangement for the benefit of employees' does not include payment of sick pay by an employer to an employee under a contract of employment. Such payments are made by the employer to rather than 'for the benefit' of the employee. Further, they are made pursuant to the contract of employment, an expression used in s. 4(3) rather that 'under an arrangement', the expression used in s 6(11)." The decision was also set aside for other reasons. Case remitted. EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(2)(d) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Harley v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2001] UKEAT 1111_01_1809 18 Sep 2001 EAT Langstaff QC Rec Employment, Discrimination Application for hearing to be postponed. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Robinson v Home Office [2001] UKEAT 533_01_1909 19 Sep 2001 EAT Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd v Filmer EAT/1087/00; [2001] UKEAT 1087_00_0510 20 Sep 2001 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination, Employment Against a background of disciplinary proceedings alleging threats by the employee, and allegations of harassment, she was dismissed for ill health. She requested an adjustment to the procedures to allow her to give written evidence after advice from her doctor about the inadvisability of attending a hearing for her health. When this was refused, she laid a complaint of disability discrimination. It was agreed that she was disabled, and that her complaint of harassment had been unable to continue in the light of the way the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. The tribunal had failed to address the 6(4)(a) question. The tribunal was wrong to dismiss the employer's defence of justification on the sole grounds that they were ignorant of the Code, particularly where they had allowed for the need to make reasonable adjustments. Held: Appeal remitted to the same tribunal. EAT Disability Discrimination - Direct Disability Discrimination Act 1996 6(4)(a) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT/773/00; [2002] ICR 1135; [2001] UKEAT 773_00_2109 21 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Police, Employment, Employment, Discrimination, Employment The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his Force members. Liability was asserted against the chief constable under the De Vere case, but no assertion was pleaded to bring it within that rule. Held: Police officers are not employees in the simple sense, and the Act did not make the Chief Constable vicariously liable. EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Race Relations Act 1976 16 32(3) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT/773/00; [2002] ICR 1135; [2001] UKEAT 773_00_2109 21 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Police, Employment, Employment, Discrimination, Employment The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously liable for the acts of his Force members. Liability was asserted against the chief constable under the De Vere case, but no assertion was pleaded to bring it within that rule. Held: Police officers are not employees in the simple sense, and the Act did not make the Chief Constable vicariously liable. EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Race Relations Act 1976 16 32(3) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Fuller v Mastercare Service and Distibution EAT/707/01 24 Sep 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Fuller v Mastercare Service and Distibution EAT/707/01 24 Sep 2001 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â D Watt (Shetland) Ltd v Christian Reid EAT/424/01 25 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Damages, Employment, Scotland The employer appealed an award of ten thousand pounds including aggravated damages, and other elements after a finding of sex discrimination. They also awarded six hundred pounds in interest. It was asserted that Scots law did not allow for aggravated damages. The EAT has power to review an award of damages. The award of aggravated damages was inconsistent with Scottish law, and was set aside, with the award of interest being reduced proportionately. EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to Feelings Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 1 Cites Â Direct Line Accident Management Ltd v Shahid Zaidi EAT/0384/00 25 Sep 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â D Watt (Shetland) Ltd v Christian Reid EAT/424/01 25 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Direct Line Accident Management Ltd v Shahid Zaidi EAT/0384/00; [2001] UKEAT 0384_00_2509 25 Sep 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D Serota QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â the Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Ms M Graham EAT/1061/00 26 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect [ EATn ] Â Bennett T/A Foxbar Hotel v Reid EAT/528/01 26 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Damages The employer appealed an award of ten thousand pounds for injured feelings, following a finding of sex discrimination. It was said that the award went beyond compensation to punishment. To vary such an award, the EAT must find some error of principle, or that it was so bad as to be unsustainable. Though the award might be described as generous, it did not meet that test, and the appeal failed. EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to Feelings 1 Cites Â David Bennett T/A Foxbar Hotel v Sandra A Reid EAT/528/01 26 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â The Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v M Graham EAT/1061/00 26 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Douglas Brown Police, Discrimination The claimant was given a senior post in the force, but within the same division in which her policeman husband held a more senior post. The appointment was rescinded, and she claimed sex discrimination. She was found to have been indirectly discriminated against because of the marital relationship. The Force had suggested that the particular position of the police would make it wrong for two officers married to each other to hold senior positions within the same division. These difficulties included the lack of compellability against a spouse. This was a condition arising directly from the marital relationship. A greater proportion of women officers were in relationships with men officers than the other way round. There was proper justification for the finding of indirect discrimination. EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b) 3(1)(b) 1 Cites Â Woodlands School (Newton Stewart) Ltd v Margaret Gordon EAT/220/01 27 Sep 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Â Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Chew; EAT 27-Sep-2001 - EAT/503/00; [2001] UKEAT 503_00_2809 Â Westmount Housing Association J Silverman: T Silverman v T Hughes EAT/0998/00; [2001] UKEAT 0998_00_0210 2 Oct 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination The respondent appealed a finding of race discrimination. The claimant had been dismissed without any disciplinary procedures being followed. Previous members of staff had not been so treated. The appellant claimed that the tribunal had also found that staff member not to be a comparator. Held: The notes clearly indicated an unexplained change of mind by the tribunal as to whether the previous employee dismissed was a comparator. The decision could not stand, and was remitted for rehearing. The decision against the third respondent was vitiated by false assumptions made by the tribunal, and was allowed. EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] Â The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A, Secretary of State for Education EAT/231/00; EAT/661/99; [2002] ICR 552; [2001] UKEAT 661_99_0210 2 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be unable to conduct searches, which were required in law to be by officers of the same sex as the person to be searched. She asserted that others would be able to conduct such searches. Held: The force had treated the applicant in the same way they would have dealt with a female to male gender assignee. The Act was clearly not intended to cope with these issues, but it must do so. It appeared implicit from the Tribunal's decision that the Force could be required to hold the applicant out to detainees and members of the public as female, when in law she remains a male. The tribunal erred. Adjusting to the applicant's requirements would be require unacceptable alterations, and the applicants requirements as to privacy were conflicting. However the incidence of physical searches was so low as to be not relevant. EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7 - Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A, Secretary of State for Education EAT/231/00; EAT/661/99; [2002] ICR 552; [2001] UKEAT 661_99_0210 2 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be unable to conduct searches, which were required in law to be by officers of the same sex as the person to be searched. She asserted that others would be able to conduct such searches. Held: The force had treated the applicant in the same way they would have dealt with a female to male gender assignee. The Act was clearly not intended to cope with these issues, but it must do so. It appeared implicit from the Tribunal's decision that the Force could be required to hold the applicant out to detainees and members of the public as female, when in law she remains a male. The tribunal erred. Adjusting to the applicant's requirements would be require unacceptable alterations, and the applicants requirements as to privacy were conflicting. However the incidence of physical searches was so low as to be not relevant. EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7 - Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â James Kassi v D Edwards EAT/0708/00 3 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Lexington Burke v Essilor Ltd EAT/605/00 3 Oct 2001 EAT Her Honour Judge A Wakefield Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â James Kassi v D Edwards EAT/0708/00 3 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Damages The claimant had been employed on a building site. On her induction she witnessed her manager groping another female member of staff, and later had comments about 'being squeezed in' which she took to be sexually charged. The employer appealed the award of damages on the basis that the conduct had not been found to have any part in her not being given work, and that no finding of discrimination had been made in respect of the words alleged. Held: The main award of damages was set aside, and the damages for injury to feelings was reduced to a standard figure of £500.00. EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â K Boateng v London Borough of Hackney Sarah Ebanja Christopher Hinde EAT/0586/00 4 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination The applicant had succeeded in an action for race discrimination against the respondents. By the conclusion of those proceedings he was no longer employed, and sought a reference. It was refused. He issued new proceedings asserting that this was an act of victimisation. The respondent answered that since he was no longer employed by them, any act was outside the scope of the Act. He argued that for claims under section 2 no mention was made of a condition of employment. Held: Clear authority required the right to be restricted to acts during employment. Though this might be unfortunate, it was for Parliament to change. EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Race Relations Act 1976 2(1)(a) and (c); 1(1)(a) and 4(2)(b) Â K Boateng v 1) London Borough of Hackney 2) Ms Sarah Ebanja 3) Christopher Hinde EAT/0586/00 4 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Woodlands School (Newton Stewart) Ltd v Margaret Gordon EAT/220/01 5 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Scotland, Discrimination The employer appealed against a finding of disability discrimination. The tribunal was claimed not to have taken account of the codes of practice and the need for a risk assessment. Held: The absence of a risk assessment mean that no adjustment had been considered, and no justification was available. The finding was essentially under 5(1). The appeal was dismissed. The appeal against the award of damages calculated over two years was also dismissed. The EAT specifically criticised the minority chairman's readiness to make allowance for a possible award of damages for the accident which led to the disability. To do so would defeat entirely the purpose of the legislation. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 1 Cites Â Jangra v Gate Gourmet London Ltd [2001] UKEAT 608_01_0810 8 Oct 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another Times, 09 November 2001 9 Oct 2001 QBD Burton J Discrimination, Human Rights, Housing, Planning When assessing whether a gypsy should be granted planning permission to park his caravan on a site, the authority could not take into account the fact that he had earlier refused an offer of permanent housing, where acceptance of that offer would have been contrary to the applicant's traditional way of life. The appellant and his family were Romanies who lead a nomadic way of life. The Inspector should consider whether: he lived in a caravan; he was a Romany; he was nomadic for a substantial part of the year; the itinerancy was linked to his livelihood; and he had an aversion to conventional housing. European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 and 14 - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Â Dsg Retail Ltd v Manmohan Bawa EAT/1485/99 9 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Charles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Â Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan; HL 11-Oct-2001 - Times, 16 October 2001; Gazette, 01 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 48; [2001] ICR 1065; [2001] 1 WLR 1947; [2001] 4 All ER 834; [2001] IRLR 830; [2001] Emp LR 1399 Â Collins v Standard Chartered Bank Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1555 12 Oct 2001 CA Peter Gibson LJ Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Aisling Sykes v J P Morgan EAT/279/00 12 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A Bari v Aspen Windows Group Ltd EAT/1379/00 & EAT/0412/01 12 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A Bari v Aspen Windows Group Ltd EAT/0412/01; EAT/1379/00 12 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â M A Arnold v Pointon York Ltd EAT/0649/00 16 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EAT ] Â M A Arnold v Pointon York Ltd EAT/0649/00 16 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â M Berry v G B Electronics Ltd EAT/0882/00 17 Oct 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Louise Mary Waters v Jamie Griffin Centre Marketing (Uk) Ltd , )Roseland Leisure Ltd EAT/706/00 17 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to Feelings Â Waters v Griffin, Centre Marketing (UK) Ltd, Roseland Leisure Ltd EAT/706/00 17 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Others [ EATn ] Â M Berry v G B Electronics Ltd EAT/0882/00 17 Oct 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Regina (SR) v Nottingham Magistrates' Court [2001] EWHC Admin 802 19 Oct 2001 QBD Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Newman Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Children, Discrimination The applicant SR, aged 15, was remanded in custody to a Youth Offenders Institution pending sentence. Had he been a girl, he could not have been so remanded, since no similar provision was available for them. He complained that the law infringed his human rights. It was accepted that he was properly dealt with under the rules. For Art 14, a difference is discriminatory if it 'has no objective and reasonable justification', that is, it pursues no 'legitimate aim' or if there is no 'reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means and the aim to be realised'. The court refused the declaration of incompatibility requested, but ordered that the committal to custody had been wrong. Crime and Disorder Act 1998 98 - European Convention on Human Rights art 14 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento EAT/522/01 19 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2001] UKEAT 645_00_2510; [2002] IRLR 24 25 Oct 2001 EAT Altman J Employment, Discrimination The point of time at which to assess disability is at the time of the alleged discrimination. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Desmond v Safeway Stores Plc [2001] UKEAT 1330_00_3010; EAT/1330/00 30 Oct 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Others 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â California Cake and Cookie Ltd v Margaret Hay EAT/637/01; Appeal No. EAT/637/01 31 Oct 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to Feelings [ EATn ] - [ EATn ] Â Colin Dixon v Ferguson Seacabs Ltd EAT/591/01 1 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Colin Dixon v Ferguson Seacabs Ltd EAT/591/01 1 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Adjustments Â Neckles v Yorkshire Rider Ltd (T/A First Huddersfield) [2001] EWCA Civ 1647 1 Nov 2001 CA Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Gardner Merchant Limited v G Ferrari EAT/0930/00 2 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Gardner Merchant Limited v G Ferrari EAT/0930/00; [2001] UKEAT 0930_00_0211 2 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] Â The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks EAT/614/01; [2001] UKEAT 614_01_0511 5 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D Serota QC Employment, Police, Discrimination EAT Jurisdiction - (no sub-topic). 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1719 5 Nov 2001 CA Keene LJ Discrimination Leave to appeal refused. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Prospect Care Services Ltd and S. Hyland v L R Curtis EAT/1248/99 6 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â the Commission of the Inland Revenue and B Cleave Cb v M M Morgan EAT/851/99 6 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â Prospect Care Services Ltd and S Hyland v L R Curtis EAT/1248/99 6 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â L M Mills v London Borough of Hillingdon EAT/0954/00 7 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â L M Mills v London Borough of Hillingdon EAT/0954/00 7 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Lawrence v J Sainsbury Plc EAT/0551/01; [2001] UKEAT 0551_01_0811 8 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Reid Qc Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Rajendra Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1761 8 Nov 2001 CA Mummery LJ Discrimination, Health Professions Application for leave to appeal. Race Relations Act 1976 68(6) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Balamoody v Manchester Health Authority [2001] UKEAT 0801_01_1211 12 Nov 2001 EAT Maurice Kay J Employment, Discrimination The Tribunal heard a preliminary application in a claim for unlawful race discrimination. Earlier applications had been struck out. This second set of applications had been struck out as frivolous by the Tribunal on the basis that they were not new complaints. Held. The second application had properly been struck out as frivolous, on the basis that he was seeking to re-litigate the case that had previously been advanced. The case of Roffey did not apply since that dealt with dismissals based on the ground that a claim had no reasonable prospect of success. In any event the case did not have a reasonable chance of success. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Bloomberg L P v Vanda Maria Simoes Cordeiro EAT/0739/00 12 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Wilkie Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Bloomberg L P v Vanda Maria Simoes Cordeiro EAT/0739/00 12 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Wilkie QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â College of Ripon and York St John v Dr C C Hobbs EAT/585/00; [2001] UKEAT 585_00_1411; [2002] IRLR 185 14 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination, Employment The college appealed a finding that the applicant who had been found to be disabled within the Act, but denied discrimination. They appealed the finding of the tribunal which had failed to identify whether the disability was mental or physical. Held: There was sufficient evidence of impairment to constitute disability. The expert evidence was not conclusive, but the tribunal had cause to base its finding. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Reuters Ltd v H Williams EAT/0641/00; [2001] UKEAT 0641_00_1511 15 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination The respondent company appealed a finding of sex discrimination by a staff member engaging in sexual harassment. A young female worker complained that her manager had persisted in making advances to her. It was said that the Tribunal had failed to resolve conflicts of evidence, and had made findings of fact unsupported by evidence. Held: The unresolved issues were not significant, and nor were any findings outside the scope of the tribunal's duty to make a decision in the round. Appeal dismissed. EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â O Brown v Concept Automotive Services Ltd EAT/0934/00 15 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Wilkie QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Reuters Ltd v H Williams EAT/0641/00 15 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â O Brown v Concept Automotive Services Ltd EAT/0934/00 15 Nov 2001 EAT His Hon Judge Wilkie Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Mills v London Borough of Hillingdon EAT/0954/00 17 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EAT ] Â Hayes v Charman Underwriting Agencies Ltd EAT/242/00; [2001] UKEAT 242_00_1912 19 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Uruakpa, Regina (on the Application Of) v Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1811 19 Nov 2001 CA Tuckey LJ Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Chaudhary v The Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges and 8 others EAT/1410/00; [2001] UKEAT 1410_00_2011 20 Nov 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Catherall v Michelin Tyres Plc [2001] UKEAT 915_01_2111 21 Nov 2001 EAT Pugsley HHJ Employment, Discrimination 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department Times, 03 December 2001; Gazette, 17 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1756; [2002] Emp LR 91; [2002] IRLR 80; [2002] ICR 321 22 Nov 2001 CA Lord Phillips Mr, Lord Justice Schiemann, And, Lord Justice Mummery Employment, Discrimination, Administrative The Lord Chancellor's action in appointing to a special adviser's post someone he already knew and trusted, without first advertising the post openly, was not an act of sex or race discrimination. Had they applied, they would not have been appointed because they were not personally known to the Lord Chancellor. In practice a post had been created for the person appointed. It was claimed that the requirement that the applicant be known to the Lord Chancellor, and be acceptable to him, had a disproportionate requirement against women and against non-white applicants. If the tribunal had reasoned that such a requirement would exclude greater proportions of such potential applicants, then the reasoning was wrong. Indirect discrimination requirement looked at the effect on the pool of potential candidates. It was discriminatory only if a significant proportion of the pool were able to satisfy the requirement. Where the requirement excluded almost the entirety of the pool, it could not constitute discrimination within the statutes. Since the requirement excluded everyone except the person appointed, it could have had no disproportionate effect on the different groupings within the pool. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b) - Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) (OJ 1976 L39/40) - Race Relations Act 1976 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â J L Melbourne v Ministry of Defence EAT/522/00; [2002] UKEAT 522_00_1401 26 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination, Employment, Armed Forces EAT Race Discrimination - Direct e Army Act 1955 180 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Â Hussain v Kings College Hospital NHS Trust; EAT 27-Nov-2001 - EAT/1345/01; [2001] UKEAT 1345_01_2711 Â Margaret Anne Greig v Fife Council EAT/814/01 29 Nov 2001 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination EAT Unfair Dismissal - Reason for Dismissal/Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Dr Subhi H A Al-Azzawi v Haringey Council (Haringey Design Partnership Directorate of Technical and Environmental Services) EAT/158/00 3 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to Feelings 1 Cites Â Dr Subhi H A Al-Azzawi v Haringey Council (Haringey Design Partnership Directorate of Technical and Environmental Services) EAT/158/00 3 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â R Condappa v Newham Health Care Trust EAT/452/00 4 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento EAT/522/01; [2001] UKEAT 522_01_0412 4 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination, Damages, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personell [2001] EWCA Civ 1885; [2005] ICR 1760 4 Dec 2001 CA Employment, Discrimination Failure to give proper reference. ECJ judgment giving right to make complaint only if cause was result of complaint over health and safety matters. Held: The appeal failed. The section did not protect former workers: "section 44 does not, on its proper construction, apply in the circumstances relied upon by Mr Fadipe. The section is in the part of the Act that affords protection from suffering detriment in employment. Its purpose is to protect employees while they are still employed from suffering detriment, short of dismissal, by reason of having brought to their employer's attention health and safety matters of the kind referred to in section 44(1)(c). If it is a dismissal case the section does not apply: see section 44(4). " Nor was it possible now to raise issues not pleaded before the tribunal. Council Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvement in the safety and health of workers at work, 89/391/EEC - Employment Rights Act 1996 44 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â R Condappa v Newham Health Care Trust EAT/452/00 4 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Stoll (Uk) Ltd v R Mitcham EAT/1018/01 6 Dec 2001 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Stoll (Uk) Ltd v R Mitcham EAT/1018/01 6 Dec 2001 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Secretary of State for Social Security v Walter Times, 13 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1913 6 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Keene Discrimination, Benefits Where a full time student became pregnant and had to suspend her studies, the regulations still treated her as a student, and disentitled her from benefits. The claimant alleged that this was sex discrimination. Held: It was not. The starting point had to be that the Regulations made no explicit distinction between a man and a woman, nor with whether a woman was pregnant or not. She claimed that she had suffered a detriment and that since it was associated with her benefit it was discriminatory. Not everything which affected pregnant women was discriminatory. Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 207) - Equal Treatment Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ 1979 L6/24) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting [2001] EWCA Civ 2097; [2002] IRLR 288; [2002] ICR 646 6 Dec 2001 CA Henry LJ, Ward LJ, Sir Christopher Slade Employment, Discrimination, Litigation Practice The claimant had been struck from the register of nurses after convictions arising from failures of his staff at his nursing home with regard to drug management. He had then brought claims of unlawful race discrimination against the health authority and against the respondent. Those claims had been dismissed as frivolous, no valid comparator having been provided. The appellant said that the tribunal should have heard his evidence before deciding that his claim was frivolous. Held. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted. The court approved and applied the decision in Moore. The decision to strike out a claim was an exercise of discretion which should be disturbed only for an error of law or manifest unreasonableness. However the case might have proceeded on the basis of a hypothetial comparator. His complaint was not of the unfairness of the respondent's decision but as to its unlawfulness being, he said, based on racial grounds. It was incumbent on the tribunal to construct an hypothetical comparator. The tribunal and appeal tribunal had lost sight of the fundamental claim. Nursing Homes and Mental Nursing Homes Regulations 1984 15(3) - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 13(2) - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 15(2) - Race Relations Act 1976 1(1) 2 3(4) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd and Another [2001] UKEAT 0233_01_0712 7 Dec 2001 EAT Pugsley J Employment, Discrimination, Damages The claimant sought leave to appeal against a finding that though there had been serious sex discrimination, the affect on her had been low, and the damages for injury to feelings reduced accordingly. Held. The appeal was dismissed. The defendant's manager had made crass sexist remarks, but the tribunal had considered them and had not erred in law in its award of £2,500. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd [2002] ICR 1453; EAT/1303/00; [2002] UKEAT 1303_00_2002; [2002] ICR 1453 7 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT The EAT considered the expression "likely to last" in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: "It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some earlier date the future would then have seem to hold, to have regard to what the future in fact came to pass to be, as, by the date of the hearing, will have sometimes come to be the case". "But both the terms of Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(b), and the opening words of paragraph B8 of the Guidance emphasise that here what has to be examined is the existence or not of a likelihood. The question is not whether the impairment in fact lasted at least 12 months (as would very often, given inescapable delays in arranging hearings, be capable of being easily seen by looking backwards from the date of the hearing) but whether the "period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months". Although the latter part of the first sentence of paragraph B8 is unhelpful as guidance, it is not, in our view, intended to displace the otherwise proper construction of paragraph 2(1)(b), which the present tense "is likely" assists towards, namely that the likelihood falls to be judged as it currently was, or would have seemed to have been, at the point when the discriminatory behaviour occurred. The latter part of paragraph B8 (taking account of the typical length rather than the actual length of an effect as it has transpired to be) emphasises that it is not what has actually later occurred but what could earlier have been expected to occur which is to be judged. Mr Harris has sought to persuade us that Greenwood v British Airways plc [1999] ICR 969 is to the contrary, in particular at p 977E—F. It is clear that in some respects that paragraph is not to the contrary, but to the extent that it is we must respectfully differ from it". EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Dr G A Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey EAT/462/00 10 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Dr G A Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey EAT/462/00 10 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Employment, Discrimination The appellant appealed a finding that he had not been unfairly dismissed and had not sufferred discrimination for his disability. He said his case had been ambushed by the respondent being allowed, in closing, to raise matters to which he was given no right of reply. Held: The issue had been raised on the first of a five day hearing, and the ground was without basis. Although the claimant suffered multiple sclerosis, the finding that he was not disabled was not perverse. The tribunal had rejected the applicant's evidence of the extent of the symptoms he claimed. The impairment was one which might arise in future, but the medical evidence was inconclusive. The appeal was dismissed. EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Morgan v Staffordshire University EAT/0322/00; [2002] IRLR 190; [2001] UKEAT 0322_00_1112; [2002] ICR 475 11 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President) Discrimination The EAT gave guidance on the approach to be adopted in cases where a mental impairment is alleged by a complainant. After referring to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act: 'Accordingly, in general there will be three or possibly four routes to establishing the existence of 'mental impairment' within the [1995 Act], namely: (i) proof of a mental illness specifically mentioned as such in the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases … (ii) proof of a mental illness specifically mentioned as such in a publication 'such as' that classification, presumably therefore referring to some other classification of very wide professional acceptance; (iii) proof by other means of a medical illness recognised by a respected body of medical opinion." A fourth, and rare ground also applied. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Sch 1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â J Langley v Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust EAT/1228/00 11 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D M Levy Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â J Langley v Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust EAT/1228/00 11 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D M Levy QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Barry v The Student Support Centre (Bucks) Ltd [2001] UKEAT 0916_01_1112 11 Dec 2001 EAT Levy QC HHJ Employment, Discrimination Appeal against rejection of claim of disability discrimination. [ Bailii ] Â Eat/0714/00 G P Jones, Eat/1099/00 N Kirker, D Angel, C Bond v 3M Healthcare Ltd, Ambitions Personnel (Nottinghamshire) Ltd, British Sugar Plc, New Possibilities NHS Trust EAT/1099/00; EAT/0714/00 11 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â G P Jones, N Kirker, D Angel and C Bond v 3M Healthcare Ltd, Ambitions Personnel (Nottinghamshire) Ltd, British Sugar Plc, New Possibilities NHS Trust and Hackney EAT/1487/00; EAT/0714/00; EAT/1099/00; EAT/1220/00; [2002] ICR 341 11 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Nicholas Kirker was employed by British Sugar plc as a shift chemist until dismissed. He has very poor eyesight and is registered as fully blind. He claimed he had been discriminated against as a disabled person and unfairly dismissed. Both claims succeeded in the employment tribunal and were upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. he applied for a job as a warehouse operative, through a company called Ambitions Personnel. He gave British Sugar as a referee. He was not appointed to the post he sought, although the position remained unfilled. He applicied against Ambitions Personnel, alleging disability discrimination, later joining in British Sugar, alleging victimisation. He claimed that the reference supplied by British Sugar to Ambitions Personnel was unsatisfactory. British Sugar successfully applied to have the claim against it struck out, on the basis of the Adekeye decision. The tribunal was plainly unhappy at being obliged to follow and apply this decision, observing that 'a more purposive approach … might now find more support in today's social and judicial climate' Diane Angel was employed by New Possibilities NHS Trust until July 1998, when she was dismissed from her nursing post because she suffered from back and hip problems. She made a successful claim to an employment tribunal in respect of her dismissal. In January 2000 the Trust supplied a reference for her to a prospective employer. This contained material she considered to be adverse because of her earlier proceedings. In March 2000 she presented a second application to an employment tribunal, complaining of victimisation. Following a preliminary hearing the tribunal ruled, in August 2000, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Charmaine Bond suffers from back injuries sustained in a road accident. She was employed by Hackney Citizens' Advice Bureau until she was made redundant in October 1999. She then made three successive applications to an employment tribunal: in November 1999, when she claimed she had been discriminated against on account of her disability; in January 2000, when she alleged breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages; and in June 2000, when she presented the application now under consideration. In this application she claimed she had been victimised in that the bureau had refused to supply her with a reference and had given false information in reply to enquiries by two companies which had insured her property in respect of mortgage repayments. The alleged acts of victimisation all related to periods after her employment with the bureau had come to an end. In respect of each case, the tribunal expressed regret at its decision. Gerald Jones was employed by 3M Healthcare Ltd as a computer network analyst until dismissed in November 1997. He brought proceedings, which were unsuccessful, for unfair dismissal and sex and disability discrimination. While employed Mr Jones had received business cards from other organisations. He had left these cards in his office when his employment ended. In September 1999 he asked 3M to return the cards, but the company declined to do so. Mr Jones then brought proceedings in the county court, and the cards were delivered to him pursuant to an order of the court made in February 2000. Thereafter, in March 2000, Mr Jones made an application to an employment tribunal, complaining that in respect of 3M's earlier refusal to return the cards he had been subjected to victimisation and discrimination on the grounds of sex and disability, the disability being severe clinical depression. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims under the Disability Discrimination Act, because at the time he was not employed by 3M, but that it did have jurisdiction to hear the victimisation claim made under the Sex Discrimination Act. Held: The appeals were dismissed, applying Adekeye. 'If there is any escape other than by legislative amendment, it lies only, it seems to us, in the House of Lords'. Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive No 76/207/EEC) 1 Cites Â Colman Coyle v Z Georgiou EAT/535/00 13 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â G G Williams v Owens Corning Fibreglass (Gb) Ltd EAT/1039/00; [2001] UKEAT 1039_00_1312 13 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D Pugsley Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] Â Colman Coyle v Z Georgiou EAT/535/00 13 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â M Lucey v E C Sames and Co Ltd, National Westminster Bank Plc EAT/965/00 14 Dec 2001 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â M Lucey v (!) E C Sames and Co Ltd, National Westminster Bank Plc EAT/965/00 14 Dec 2001 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Collett v Diocese of Hallam Trustee [2001] UKEAT 1400_00_1712; EAT/1400/00 17 Dec 2001 EAT Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Panesar v Consignia Plc EAT/1251/00; [2001] UKEAT 1251_00_1712 17 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge D M Levy QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Rawson v Martin Ward Anderson Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1304_00_1712; EAT/1304/00 17 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solictors EAT/1116/00; [2002] UKEAT 1116_00_2502; [2002] ICR 971 17 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â the Home Office v S A Butt EAT/0565/01; EAT/1169/00 18 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring Discrimination Â The Home Office v S A Butt EAT/566/01; EAT/1169/00 18 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect Â Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] EWCA Civ 2005 18 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Ward And Lord Justice Keene Discrimination The claimant's claim for race discrimination had been dismissed on appeal by the EAT. He now appealed to restore the judgement of the employment tribunal. He had begun an action against his employer, and then unsuccessfully applied for employment with the respondent. He later discovered that there had been conversations between the two employers. Held: The employment tribunal had found that since it was not satisfied that the interviewers had reason not to employ him, they must have known of the race discrimination claim. Knowledge of the discrimination claim is a pre-requisite to a finding of victimisation. The tribunal had not been free to make such an inference. Race Relations Act 1976 2(1)(a) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â the Home Office v S A Butt EAT/1169/00; EAT/0565/01 & EAT 18 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â the Home Office v S A Butt EAT/1169/00 & 566/01 18 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Kovacs v Queen Mary and Westfield College and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 2003 18 Dec 2001 CA Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Kerr v Queens University Belfast [2001] NIFET 193_01 18 Dec 2001 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â D C D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT/359/99; EAT/110/01 19 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â D C D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT/359/99 & EAT/110/01 19 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â D C D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT/395/99 & EAT/110/01 19 Dec 2001 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Maurice Kay Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Dr H Platt, NHS Executive HQ, Department Of Health v R Chaudhary and Others, R Chaudhary and others EAT/1101/00; EAT/1100/00; [2001] UKEAT 1100_00_2012 20 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant's claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause of action estoppel, and issue estoppel, but has in common that litigation should be final and a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. Held: The chairman was in error. A tribunal could add an amendment to a claim raising matters occurring after the claim had been issued despite earlier cases to the contrary. It was not clear that the matters raised in the new proceedings could properly be tried as part of the proceedings in the other tribunal, and accordingly the new proceedings were not an abuse of process. EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Phillip Pennant v Ipc Magazines Limited, Nigel Clout EAT/1308/00 20 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Phillip Pennant v IPC Magazines Limited Nigel Clout [2001] UKEAT 1308_00_2012 20 Dec 2001 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â General Council of the Bar v Miriki Times, 22 January 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1973; [2002] ICR 505 21 Dec 2001 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lady Justice Arden, And, Mr Justice Morland Discrimination, Employment The applicant claimed that the respondent Council had discriminated against her. After complicated applications, leave to appeal was granted on limited grounds, but on appeal the applicant had been allowed to extend that appeal. Held: An appeal tribunal might use its case management powers to allow limited departure from the permitted grounds of appeal, only provided the point had been raised before, he had explained why he did not appeal against the limitation, the respondent had full opportunity to argue against that departure, and the court explained its reasoning for allowing that departure. Those conditions had not been met in this case. Employment Tribunal Act 1996 30(3) - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Discrimination - From: 2001 To: 2001