The applicant alleged discrimination arising out of a disputed grading. She claimed the grading she had received in 1988 amounted to direct discrimination on grounds of race, and that because this affected her pay there was a ‘continuing act’ of discrimination, which entitled her to present a complaint in 1990.
Held: Time ran from the alleged act of discrimination (the refusal to promote the claimant), not from the subsequent period during which she received a lower salary in consequence. The fact she continued to receive lower pay than her comparator was the consequence of the decision to place her at the disputed grade – not the result of a ‘continuing act’. There was no less favourable term of her contract because the relevant term in her contract was that she would be paid according to her grade, and that was not a discriminatory provision.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Wood Mc (P)
Citations:
[1991] UKEAT 586 – 90 – 3107, [1991] IRLR 447, [1992] ICR 650
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal From – Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority CA 1992
The claimant alleged race discrimination arising out of a disputed grading and because it affected her pay she said it was a continuing act.
Held: The court drew the distinction between a ‘one-off’ act of alleged racial discrimination and its . .
Cited – Miller and Others v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Dec-2019
The issue in this appeal is when time starts to run for a claim by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive (Directive 97/81) (‘PTWD’), as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.211252
