Mr Nagarajan, of Indian birth, had brought several complaints to the Tribunal based on race. A settlement was reached on or about 1st November 1989 in full and final settlement of all his claims arising out of his employment with London Underground Ltd. His employment by LUL had ceased by then. Mr Nagarajan, after a spell of unemployment, applied for a job with LUL’s holding company, LRT. Mr Agnew, a manager, on being asked to fill in a form about that application, firmly recommended against Mr Nagarajan’s re-employment. LRT rejected the job application. The company now appealed against a finding of discrimination victimisatio.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There has to be a ‘subsisting employment relationship’ at the time when the events complained of in section 4(2) of the Act occur. The majority of the events listed in that subsection can occur only during employment, the whole provision is couched in the present tense, and had Parliament intended to include post-employment benefits, it would have made that intention explicit. The claimant being no longer employed, the decision was fundamentally flawed.
Where there are mixed motives for the action complained of, the unlawful motive must be of sufficient weight in the decision making process to be treated as a cause of the act so motivated.
Judges:
Knox J
Citations:
[1995] ICR 520, [1993] UKEAT 270 – 92 – 2107
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
Cited – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School and Another EAT 24-May-1996
The claimant had been dismissed as a teacher by the respondent Roman Catholic school after she became pregnant by a priest. She had been found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal had rejected her claim of discrimination for pregnancy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183814