The claimants were pursuing an action for equal pay. Several others settled their own actions, and the respondents then wrote direct to the claimants expressing their concern that the action ws being continued and its possible effects. The claimants said that this amounted to victimisation.
Held: The employees’ appeal succeeded. The letter amounted to unfair pressure and was victimisation. ‘On the facts of this case, a finding that the detriment was ‘by reason that’ the employees were insisting on their claims because the respondents went further than was reasonable in protecting their own interests was inescapable.’
Baroness Hale of Richmond said: ‘If one asks the simple question – ‘why did these employers send the letters?’ – there can only be one answer: because these women were pursuing their claims for equal pay even though the others had settled.’ and ‘The more difficult question for the Tribunal was whether these employers had gone too far in their attempts to induce the women to settle and the Tribunal had already addressed that question.’
The reasonableness of the perception of adverse detriment is the touchstone of detriment.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Times 27-Apr-2007, [2007] UKHL 16, [2007] 3 All ER 81, [2007] ICR 841, [2007] IRLR 540
Bailii
Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
Appeal from – St Helens Metroploitan Borough Council v Derbyshire and others CA 29-Jul-2005
The employees commenced a series of sex discrimination claims against the appellant. Many had settled, and the council wrote directly to the remaining claimants. The claimants said this amounted to intimidation because the council had not gone . .
Cited – Cornelius v University College of Swansea CA 1987
A college declined to act on an employee’s transfer request or to operate their grievance procedure while proceedings under the 1975 Act, brought by the employee against the college, were still awaiting determination. The college was trying to . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur and Others (No 2) CA 1995
An unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to a detriment in discrimination law. . .
Cited – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah CA 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination law. Brightman LJ said: ‘I think a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the duty was in all the circumstances to his detriment.’
Lord Justice . .
Cited by:
Cited – Fosh v Cardiff University EAT 23-Jan-2008
The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed . .
Cited – Oyarce v Cheshire County Council CA 2-May-2008
The court was asked as to whether the provisions for the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases was limited to findings of discrimination or extended also to issues of victimisation, and as to whether section 5A had properly . .
Cited – Pothecary Witham Weld (A Firm) and Another v Bullimore and Another EAT 29-Mar-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of Proof
Ex-employee given unfavourable reference – Claim that terms of reference were partly on account of her having previously brought . .
Cited – Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School CA 13-Oct-2017
Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life
The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes.
Held: The action was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Discrimination, Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.251486