Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 0260 – 03 – 1209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191844

Judges:

Peter Clark HHJ

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0399 – 03 – 1310, [2003] UKEAT 0399 – 03 – 1310

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191864

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

Her Honour Judge A Wakefield

Citations:

UKEAT/850/02/SM, [2003] UKEAT 0850 – 02 – 0912

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190164

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0253 – 03 – 2306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189474

Judges:

Mr Recorder Hand QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 638 – 02 – 0905, [2003] UKEAT 638 – 02 – 0905, EAT/638/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189461

Appeal from refusal of claim for sex discrimination – allegation of sexual harassment.

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0898 – 02 – 2306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189466

EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring discrimination.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Prophet

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0145 – 03 – 0805, [2003] UKEAT 0145 – 03 – 0805, EAT/145/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187827

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0991 – 02 – 2907, EAT/991/02

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Henry v London Borough of Newham EAT 6-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

See Also – Henry v London Borough of Newham EAT 29-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187233

EAT Sex Discrimination – Burden of proof

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/596/02, [2003] EAT 0596 – 02 – 1607, [2003] UKEAT 0596 – 02 – 1607

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186385

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

EAT/300/02, [2003] EAT 0300 – 02 – 0805, [2003] UKEAT 0300 – 02 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185937

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:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 4(2)

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

The Industrial Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon the act or acts of which complaint is made to it. The questions on a complaint of race discrimination are: (a) Did the act complained of actually occur? (b) If the act complained of occurred in time, was there a difference in race involving the applicant? (c) If a difference in race was involved, was the applicant treated less favourably than the alleged discriminator treated or would treat other persons of a different racial group in the same, or not materially different, relevant circumstances? (d) If there was difference in treatment involving persons of a different race, was that treatment ‘on racial grounds’? Were racial grounds an effective cause of the difference in treatment? What explanation of the less favourable treatment is given by the respondent?

Mummery J said: ‘In the present case, it was necessary for the Tribunal to examine all the allegations made by Dr Qureshi of other incidents relied upon by him as evidentiary facts of race discrimination in the matters complained of. There is a tendency, however, where many evidentiary incidents or items are introduced, to be carried away by them and to treat each of the allegations, incidents or items as if they were themselves the subject of a complaint. In the present case it was necessary for the Tribunal to find the primary facts about those allegations. It was not, however, necessary for the Tribunal to ask itself, in relation to each such incident or item, whether it was itself explicable on ‘racial grounds’ or on other grounds. That is a misapprehension about the nature and purpose of evidentiary facts. The function of the Tribunal is to find the primary facts from which they will be asked to draw inferences and then for the Tribunal to look at the totality of those facts (including the respondent’s explanations) in order to see whether it is legitimate to infer that the acts or decisions complained of in the originating applications were on ‘racial grounds’. The fragmented approach by the Tribunal in this case would inevitably have the effect of diminishing any eloquence that the cumulative effect of the primary facts might have on the issue of racial grounds. The process of inference is itself a matter of applying common sense and judgment to the facts, and assessing the probabilities on the issue whether racial grounds were an effective cause of the acts complained of or were not. The assessment of the parties and their witnesses when they give evidence also form an important part of the process of inference. The Tribunal may find the force of the primary facts is sufficient to justify an inference of racial grounds. It may find that any inference that it might have made is negated by a satisfactory explanation from the respondent of non-racial grounds of action or decision.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

[2001] ICR 863, [1996] UKEAT 484 – 95 – 2305, EAT/484/95

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Chapman and Another v Simon CA 1994
The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and rule upon other acts of racial discrimination not included in the complaints in the Originating Application.
Racial discrimination may be established as a matter of direct primary . .

Cited by:

Approved – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited – The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
Cited – Law Society v Bahl CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant had succeeded before the employment tribunal in her claim of race discrimination by the respondent and senior officers. She now appealed the reversal of that judgment. The claimant asked the tribunal to draw inferences of discrimination . .
Cited – Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd Michael Huss Anthony Sutcliffe, Peter Done EAT 17-Dec-1999
EAT The claimant said that she had been subjected to crass sexual banter by her senior manager. She refused to take up a post unless he was moved, and when he declined to so, she was dismissed.
The court . .
Cited – Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and Others EAT 11-Jan-2011
lisboa_realpubsEAT11
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
Whether Respondent’s policy of encouraging a wider clientele at a formerly gay pub involved less favourable treatment of gay customers causing the Claimant to resign in . .
Cited – Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood EAT 28-May-2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183405

EAT The tribunal asked whether the claimant was disabled within the Act. He suffered depression, but the tribunal had found it not substantial and not capable of lasting more than 12 months.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0016/02, [2002] UKEAT 0016 – 02 – 2011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178504

EAT The tribunal had held that the applicant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because only of an addiction to alcohol. This was not to be treated as an impairment. She also suffered from depression.
Held: The tribunal should have determined whether the depression constituted an impairment within the meaning of the Act without inquiring into its cause. ‘Further, in our judgment, the employment tribunal erred in its approach, as evidenced in the last sentence of paragraph 24 of its decision. It is not material to a decision as to whether a person is suffering a disability within the meaning of the Act, to consider how the impairment from which they are suffering was caused. What is material is to ascertain whether the disability from which they are suffering at the material time is a disability within the meaning of the Act or whether, where it is relevant as in this case, it is an impairment which is excluded by reason of the Regulations from being treated as such a disability.’

Judges:

Ms Recorder Slade QC

Citations:

EAT/747/01, [2003] IRLR 151, [2002] UKEAT 747 – 01 – 1709

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Power v Panasonic UK Ltd EAT 24-Jan-2002
. .

Cited by:

Followed – Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Mason EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability.
Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to . .
Cited – Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178225

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0005/02, [2002] UKEAT 0005 – 02 – 2510

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177853

EAT Equal Pay Act
EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic).

Judges:

His Hon Judge J R Reid QC

Citations:

EAT/835/01, [2002] UKEAT 804 – 01 – 0808, EAT/804/01

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177376

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

EAT/1116/00, [2002] UKEAT 1116 – 00 – 2502, [2002] ICR 971

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See Also – Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solicitors EAT 1-Mar-2001
Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172096

EAT Disability Discrimination – Adjustments
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/1431/99, [2000] EAT 1431 – 99 – 1906

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171863

The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for discrimination had been properly allowed. The Act should be interpreted sufficiently widely to provide a remedy for the ill it sought to cure.
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/1386/00, [2001] UKEAT 1386 – 00 – 1004

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appealed to – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Cited – Tom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT 5-May-1999
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appeal from – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171805

EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/461/99, [2000] EAT 461 – 99 – 1506, [2000] IRLR 691

Links:

EATn, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
See Also – Desmond A Quinn v Schwarzkopf Ltd EAT 10-Oct-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171466

EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/806/98, [1999] UKEAT 806 – 98 – 0107

Links:

Bailii

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171641

EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

EAT/372/00, [2002] UKEAT 372 – 00 – 2501

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168498

(Judgment) Social policy – Men and women – Access to employment and working conditions – Equal treatment – Dismissal of a woman on grounds of absence due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement – Permissible – Account taken, when calculating the period providing grounds for dismissal, of absence outside periods of maternity leave – Permissible (Council Directive 76/207, Arts 2(1) and (3) and 5(1))
Without prejudice to provisions of national law for the protection of women, particularly with regard to pregnancy and maternity, adopted pursuant to Article 2(3) of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 2(1), thereof does not preclude dismissals which are the result of absences due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement, even where that illness arose during pregnancy and continued during and after maternity leave.
In particular, the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Directive does not preclude account being taken of a woman’s absence from work between the beginning of her pregnancy and the beginning of her maternity leave when calculating the period providing grounds for her dismissal under national law.
During the maternity leave accorded to her pursuant to national law, a woman is protected against dismissal on grounds of absence. To take absence during such a period into account as grounds for a subsequent dismissal would thus be contrary to the objective pursued by Article 2(3) of the Directive, and would deprive that provision of its effectiveness. Outside periods of maternity leave, however, and in the absence of any national or, as the case may be, Community provisions affording women specific protection, a woman is not protected under the Directive against dismissal on grounds of periods of absence due to an illness attributable to pregnancy.

Citations:

[1997] EUECJ C-400/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161750

EAT Sex Discrimination – Equal Treatment Directive
Discrimination – burden of proof – whether ET’s reasoning adequate – decision upheld on one issue, case remitted to ET on the other.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bean

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0082 – 06 – 2807, UKEAT/0082/06

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Discrimination

Updated: 02 June 2022; Ref: scu.247785

(Judgment) Classification in a higher salary grade – Doubling of the qualifying period for part-time employees – Indirect discrimination.

Citations:

[1991] EUECJ C-184/89

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160283

The local authority’s redundancy policy required the school first to choose for redundancy those on fixed term temporary contracts. The applicant’s contract had not been renewed, and she had been replaced by a teacher with lesser qualifications. The policy adversely affect more women than men and was indirect discrimination, and it was for the school to justify following it. It had to show that the policy met some need, but that question was never addressed. The school had to show the need in this situation to use the policy, not that the policy was widely followed.

Judges:

Schiemann, Latham LJJ, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

Times 03-Apr-2001, Gazette 07-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 385

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1)(b) (i)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT -1 – Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls School and Another EAT 12-Feb-1998
. .
Appeal from – Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls School and Another EAT 28-Oct-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147478

Appeal about the scope of protection conferred by the 1995 Act on ‘contract workers’, workers who do work for the alleged discriminator, but not employed by him. They are employed by someone else and their services are contracted out.
The case turns on the interpretation of section 12 of the 1995 Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against disabled contract workers. The point arises as a preliminary issue in an application to the Employment Tribunal in the field of employment for a reason relating to his disability.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Ward, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[2000] IRLR 387, [2000] EWCA Civ 107, [2000] ICR 789

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.115986

A male employee had been unlawfully discriminated against when he had been dismissed for having long hair, where the same requirements would not have been made of female employees.

Citations:

Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1994] UKEAT 185 – 93 – 0912

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89342

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0556 – 04 – 0704, UKEAT/0556/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.229903

The applicant was employed by the respondent and sought leave to work for the CAB for a year, requesting a sabbatical. Leave was refused. He applied to the employment tribunal, but objected that the chairman had, in a previous case, indicated his strong dislike of the applicant. The chairman refused to recuse himself.
Held: The proposed appeal was not on a question of law, and the EAT did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ‘The claim based on the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Directive 97/81 EC seems to me to have been entirely misconceived. Those provisions were designed to protect part-time workers from being discriminated against when compared with full-time workers. They do not give a right to an employee who wants to go and work for somebody else to insist that his original employer continues to employ him part-time. ‘

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1285 – 02 – 0703, [2003] UKEAT 1285 – 02 – 0703

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.189318

The complainant said that the respondent’s rules imposing language skills testing on doctors with recognised foreign qualifications were discriminatory.
Held: Discriminatory rules are a continuing act and the complaint was not barred by time limit. The complaint was not time-barred because it was: ‘about the maintenance and operation of a scheme for exemption which extends over a period, that period being the currency of the scheme or rules.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

Independent 22-Sep-1994, [1994] UKEAT 163 – 93 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rovenska v General Medical Council CA 4-Dec-1996
A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical . .
Cited – Cast v Croydon College CA 19-Mar-1998
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88876

The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer.

Judges:

Mummery P

Citations:

Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 07-Jun-1996, [1996] IRLR 372, [1996] UKEAT 1180 – 94 – 304, [1997] ICR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Citing:

See Also – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School EAT 12-Oct-1995
The claimant had lodged an appeal against a rejection of her claim of sex discrimination, and against the amount of damages awarded on the success of her claim of unfair dismissal. After rejection of her request for a review, her counsel had lodged . .

Cited by:

Applied – Martin v Goldsobel EAT 6-Sep-2001
The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work.
Held: To establish sex discrimination a . .
Cited – Murphy v Sheffield Hallam University EAT 11-Jan-2000
The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he . .
Cited – A C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service EAT 27-Jul-2005
The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84460

A tribunal considering a claim of disability discrimination should best consider the various statutory elements in the order given in the Act, so as to avoid confusion in unraveling what is a complex statutory structure. The wide language of section 6(2) and 6(3) is capable of applying to a ‘dismissal situation’. Although section 6 makes no express mention of dismissal, termination of service or redundancy, the Code of Practice assumes that section applies to a dismissal in the circumstances of the applicant in that case. ‘Arrangements on which employment . . is offered or afforded’ include alternatives to dismissal, such as are mentioned in section 6(3)-allocation of the disabled person’s duties to another person, assigning him to a different place of work or transferring him to fill an existing vacancy.

Judges:

Bell J

Citations:

Times 11-May-1998, [1998] UKEAT 1279 – 97 – 0105, [1998] ICR 1023

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6

Cited by:

Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Cited – Rothwell v Pelikan Hardcopy Scotland Ltd EAT 23-Sep-2005
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural fairness
The claimant, who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83862

A woman who had taken maternity leave was deemed to have returned to work following the completion of that leave when, on the appropriate date she provided medical certificates in accordance with the contract of employment. The applicant had given notice of her intention to return after maternity leave, but obtained an extension of four weeks. She requested a further extension, but this was refused by her employers. She did not attend.
Held: The right to return could not be dependent on the simple ability to return on the day notified. Nor could the simple service of a notice under the section create a return to work. In this case, however, the employee had demonstrated her intention to comply with the requirements of the contract of employment, and that was sufficient to constitute a return to work under the Act even though she did not physically attend on the notified day.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 64

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd CA 18-Dec-1998
Where an employee had taken extended maternity leave but was then unable to return for post-natal depression, but she was dismissed, the resumption of her contract on issuing her notice of intention to return revived her sickness rights anew.
Cited – Kwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had . .
Cited – Kelly v Liverpool Maritime Terminals Limited CA 1988
An employee had no valid claim for unfair dismissal if illness prevented her from returning to work before the end of the twenty-nine week period after her confinement, allowing for only one statutory extension of 4 weeks. The applicant’s maternity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81144

An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of guidance resolves this ambiguity in favour of the latter alternative. The employment tribunal would: ‘wish to examine how the applicants abilities had actually been affected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds the difficult question as to the effects which they think there would have been but for the medication: the deduced effects. The question is then whether the actual and deduced effects on the applicants ability to carry out normal day to day activities [are] clearly the more than trivial.’
The tribunal should consider four conditions: ‘(1) The impairment condition. Does the applicant have an impairment which is either mental or physical?
(2) The adverse effect condition. Does the impairment affect the applicant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in one of the respects set out in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, and does it have an adverse effect?
(3) The substantial condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) substantial?
(4) The long-term condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) long-term?’ He continued: ‘Frequently, there will be a complete overlap between conditions (3) and (4) but it will be as well to bear all four of them in mind. Tribunals may find it helpful to address each of the questions but at the same time be aware of the risk that disaggregation should not take one’s eye off the whole picture.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, [1998] UKEAT 57 – 98 – 2110, [1999] ICR 302, [1999] IRLR 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See also – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .

Cited by:

See also – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Cited – Conoco Ltd v Kevan Booth EAT 30-Jan-2001
EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was . .
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Cited – East Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
Cited – Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 27-May-1999
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80923

Two black waitresses, clearing tables in the banqueting hall of a hotel, were made the butt of racist and sexist jibes by a guest speaker entertaining the assembled all-male company at a private dinner party.
Held: The employer of the waitresses had racially discriminated against the waitresses. Had the assistant managers in charge for the evening been properly instructed, the two young women would not have suffered embarrassment. They could, and should, have been withdrawn from the room. An hotel is liable, as an employer to its employees who had been offended by racially charged or offensive material uttered by a guest speaker by a guests’ guest speaker. The employer could have taken steps to intervene, but did not do so.

Judges:

Smith J, R Chapman, Lord Gladwin

Citations:

Times 03-Oct-1996, [1997] ICR 1, [1996] IRLR 596, Independent 04-Nov-1996

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 21-Sep-2001
The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously . .
Overruled – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Doubted – S S Hussain v HM Prison Service EAT 1-Mar-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
Cited – Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd EAT 17-Dec-2010
EAT HARASSMENT – Conduct
Where an employee worked in an environment in which her dignity was violated, or which became intimidatory, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive as a result of actions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78768

The Tribunal was not wrong to find disability discrimination where an employee was selected for redundancy drawing inferences from events which had occurred before the Act came into force. No need in this law for comparison with treatment of comparitors.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] IRLR 624

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78635

Sexual harassment was defined as ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based upon sex affecting dignity at work’. It would be no defence to a complaint of sexual harassment that a person of the opposite sex would have been similarly treated. In general in cases of sexual harassment there is no necessity to look for a comparison with a particular person of the opposite sex.

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jan-1998, [1997] IRLR 668, [1997] UKEAT 1340 – 95 – 0306

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Disapproved – MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
Cited – Pearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78649

The phrase ‘common terms of employment’ means broadly comparable terms. There is no need for them to be identical, and the phrase should be construed liberally, though there can be no general commonality where there is no commonality in terms and conditions between comparative establishments.
Lord Slynn said that the terms had to be sufficiently similar to allow a fair comparison to be made: ‘generally’ does not necessarily mean ‘all’.
A genuine material factor defence, between different collective bargaining pay structures for claimant and comparator work groups, can become discriminatory: ‘Whilst accepting that differences in rates of pay historically were due to separate bargaining processes, which themselves were untainted by sex, the question remained whether at the relevant date (January 1986) the difference between workers had been shown by the Corporation to be objectively justified on grounds other than sex.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn

Citations:

Times 23-May-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Gazette 03-Jul-1996, [1996] ICR 515

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(6), Employment Protection Act 1970 1(2)(c)

Citing:

Cited – Leverton v Clwyd County Council HL 1989
The claimant, employed as a nursery nurse by the respondent in an infant school sought to compare herself with clerical staff employed by the respondent, but not in schools.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The majority of the Employment . .

Cited by:

Cited – White v Burton’s Foods Ltd EAT 6-Jul-2010
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Like work
The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent since 1984 before becoming Production Planning Manager at the Respondent’s Blackpool site. She brought a claim under the Equal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78619

An application of equal pay involved consideration of 150 comparators, and at great cost to all involved. The industrial members of the tribunal, with the support of the legal member, criticised the delay and complexity of Employment law. The growing complexity of industrial law was operating against the interests of those seeking to work within it in industry.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 208, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (1983 No 1794)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78623

EAT Practice and Procedure
Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the basis for the grievance. Held, allowing the appeal, that the employee had not done so.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0391/06

Links:

EATn

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002

Citing:

Cited – Shergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
Cited – Canary Wharf Management Limited v Edebi EAT 3-Mar-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – striking-out/dismissal
Grievance procedures. Were they complied with? Held not to be in the circumstances of this case. Observations on what counts as compliance and how . .
Cited – Grimmer v KLM Cityhopper UK EAT 17-Mar-2005
Claimant provided appropriate details of the claim
EAT Application to ET rejected by ET under Rules 1-3 of the 2004 Rules of Procedure contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 because claimant did . .
Cited – Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .

Cited by:

See Also – City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt EAT 9-Jan-2007
bradford_prattEAT2007
EAT Practice and Procedure
Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the . .
Cited – Riley v First Choice Homes Oldham Ltd EAT 30-Apr-2008
riley_firstEAT2008
EAT Statutory Discipline and Grievance Procedures – Whether applicable – Whether infringed – Was the modified or standard grievance procedure applicable? The Employment Tribunal found the former, and held that . .
Cited – Clyde Valley Housing Association Ltd v Macaulay EAT 3-Apr-2008
clyde_macaulayEAT2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Statutory grievance procedure. Modified procedure. Whether letter from claimant’s solicitor set out the basis for her grievance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.257999

EAT Equal Pay Act – Out of time

Judges:

His Honour Judge Pugsley

Citations:

UKEAT/0203/06

Links:

EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.257956

EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bell

Citations:

EAT/1326/99

Links:

EAT

Cited by:

At EAT – London Borough of Southwark v Jiminez CA 31-Jul-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted on limited grounds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.255970

EAT Sex Discrimination – Injury to feelings.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

EAT/240/03 and EAT246/03

Links:

EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.256403