The Tribunal considered the difficulties arising where one party was not represented, but where the case gave rise to difficult questions of law. In this case the claimant alleged sex discrimination in the context of rostering arrangements making demands on her as a sole parent. The defendant appealed against a finding that it was in breach of section 1 of the 1975 Act.
Judges:
Mummery P J
Citations:
[1995] UKEAT 241 – 94 – 1402
Links:
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b)
Citing:
Cited – Orphanos v Queen Mary College HL 1985
The complainant, a Cypriot, argued that the respondent college’s practice, determined by government policy, of charging higher fees to ‘overseas’ students than to ‘home’ students indirectly discriminated against him on the ground of his race. . .
Cited – Jones v University of Manchester CA 10-Mar-1993
A claim for sex discrimination based on an age requirement was wrongly based. The proportion of mature graduates was irrelevant in the appropriate pool. The Court cautioned tribunals to avoid placing artificial limitations on the scope of the pool . .
Cited by:
At EAT – London Underground Limited v Edwards (2) CA 21-May-1998
New rosters for underground train drivers were indirectly discriminatory because all the men could comply with them but not all the women could do so: it was a ‘striking fact’ that not a single man was disadvantaged despite the overwhelming . .
At EAT – London Underground Limited v Edwards CA 21-May-1998
A new driver roster imposing shift working timetables discriminated against women since significantly less in proportion of women could meet the new arrangements – indirect discrimination . .
See Also – London Underground Ltd v Edwards EAT 13-Jan-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.208942
