EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
AGE DISCRIMINATION – Dismissal
VICTIMISATION – Post-employment
FACTS
The employee was dismissed on grounds of retirement, having reached an age over 65.
A failure by the employer to follow statutory procedures in relation to age-related retirement led to findings by an Employment Tribunal of unfair dismissal and of unlawful age discrimination.
The Employment Tribunal rejected a claim for victimisation (in the form of giving an adverse reference in consequence of the unfair dismissal claim being lodged) as the Equality Act 2010 did not make a remedy available for post-employment victimisation: section 108(7).
THE APPEALS
The employer appealed from the failure of the Employment Tribunal to make any deduction in the compensation awarded – to reflect the likelihood of the employee being fairly dismissed had the correct procedures been followed.
The employee cross-appealed from the rejection of the victimisation claim and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in support of the cross-appeal.
RESULT
Appeal allowed for want of adequate reasoning by the Employment Tribunal as to why no reduction in the compensation had been made. Assessment of compensation remitted.
Cross-appeal dismissed. The 2010 Act provides no remedy for post-employment victimisation.
Judges:
Rec Luba QC
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0112 – 12 – 0503, [2013] IRLR 439, [2013] Eq LR 438, [2013] ICR 807
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited CA 1986
The employee had been made redundant with no attempt at consultation and in breach of procedures.
Held: His claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed because even if the procedures had been followed, the result would have been the same. What . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and Another CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether a claim as to acts of victimisation could be sustained in connection with actions alleged after termination of employment.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act operated to proscribe such actions. However, this is one . .
Applied – Akwiwu and Another v Onu EAT 1-May-2013
EAT Race Discrimination : Direct
Indirect
Post Employment
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
WORKING TIME REGULATIONS
The Claimant was a Nigerian woman who had . .
Cited – Onu v Akwiwu and Another CA 13-Mar-2014
Two claimants, Nigerian women, came illegally to work as domestics. They suffered severe abuse by their employers. Whilst each received substantial awards, they appealed now from rejection of their claims for discrimination based upon the advantage . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, Damages
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471352