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 practice in the course of his nurse’s training, the NHS Trust Respondents, against whom he brought a claim under s14 of the Sex Discrimination Act, were the agents of the University Respondents. The Employment Tribunal found that the Trusts were such agents, and that the Appellant’s claim could thus not be brought against them in the Employment Tribunal under s14, but only in the County Court as aiders and abettors of the University under s22. Found (upon Appellant withdrawing at the Employment Appeal Tribunal a concession made below as to the construction of s14(2))
(i) s14(2) does not have the effect of preventing a primary claim under s14(1) simply because the alleged discriminator was also acting as the agent of an educational establishment suable under s22
(ii) in any event, the onus being upon the NHS Respondents to oust the jurisdiction, if such agency were relevant, the NHS Respondents had failed to establish it.
Citations:
[2005] UKEAT 0851 – 04 – 0305, UKEAT/0851/04
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Moyhing and Another v Barts and London NHS Trust EAT 28-Apr-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.228642