EAT The appellant was a student nurse. He was required to be chaperoned when carrying out intimate procedures on female patients whereas a female student nurse was not required to have a chaperone when carrying out intimate procedures on male patients. The respondent accepted that this was direct discrimination and therefore could not be justified as a matter of law, but submitted that the appellant had suffered no detriment. The employment tribunal agreed but the EAT held that this was an error of law. Compensation was limited to injury to feelings only, and at the behest of the appellant that was fixed by the EAT rather than being remitted to the employment tribunal. The amount was fixed at the lower end of the scale, the sum of andpound;750 being awarded.
Judges:
Mr Justice Elias (President)
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0085 – 06 – 2804, UKEAT/0085/06, [2006] IRLR 860
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Moyhing v Homerton University Hospitals NHS Trust and others EAT 3-May-2005
EAT AIDING AND ABETTING; DISCRIMINATION BY OTHER BODIES
The parties took part in an Employment Tribunal hearing of a preliminary issue as to whether, in a case where the Appellant alleged a discriminatory . .
Cited by:
Cited – HM Land Registry v Grant EAT 15-Apr-2010
hmlr_grantEAT10
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISM
HARASSMENT – Conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242588