Meade-Hill and Another v The British Council: CA 7 Apr 1995

An employee mobility clause in a contract must be justified, or it may be discriminatory against women.
The potentially discriminatory effect on the complainant of the introduction of a ‘mobility clause’ to her contract of employment was a requirement capable of amounting to an act of discrimination under Sections 1(1)(b) and 6 and of rendering the clause unenforceable under Section 77(2). Millett LJ said that the fact that the discrimination was in the form of a contract clause: ‘The contract is merely the means by which the employers’ requirement is applied to her’.
Millett LJ, Waite LJ
Independent 26-Apr-1995, Times 14-Apr-1995, [1995] EWCA Civ 33, [1995] IRLR 478, [1996] 1 All ER 79, [1995] ICR 847
Bailii
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(1) 77(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCast v Croydon College CA 19-Mar-1998
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs . .
CitedCast v Croydon College CA 19-Mar-1998
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.259348