Recently in Discrimination: race Category

A round-up of links to stories about employment tribunal rulings reported in the week beginning 6 May 2013, during which a tribunal found that a dental nurse was constructively dismissed after warnings over eating an apple while on reception, using her mobile for personal calls, and going on Facebook during work time.

Dental nurse wins case after being given written warning for eating apple (on the Daily Telegraph website) A dental nurse who was given a written warning by bosses for eating an apple has won a case for constructive dismissal against the surgery.

We round up what caught Tribunal Watch's eye on Twitter in the week beginning 6 May 2013, during which the Queen's Speech included an announcement that the Deregulation Bill will make provision for the removal of the power in the Equality Act 2010 that allows employment tribunals to issue recommendations relating to the employer's whole workforce.

We round up what caught Tribunal Watch's eye on Twitter in the week beginning 29 April 2013, during which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) took the unusual step of going against its own earlier decision. In Onu v Akwiwu and another; Akwiwu and another v Onu, the EAT, in holding that the Equality Act 2010 can be interpreted to cover post-employment victimisation, disagreed with the judgment in Rowstock and another v Jessemey and another.

A round-up of links to stories about employment tribunal rulings reported in the week beginning 25 March 2013, including an award of 45 days' pay to 36 call centre workers for Capita's failure to provide Unison with information on agency workers when consulting on proposed redundancies.

Unison victory for Lambeth Council workers (on the Unison website) Capita has been found to have not provided information on agency workers to consult fully with Unison in relation to the proposed redundancy of 36 call centre workers.

Note: In February 2013, another employment tribunal found in Unison v London Borough of Barnet and another that Barnet Council was in breach of its duty to provide Unison with the required information on agency workers during redundancy and TUPE consultations.

We round up what caught Tribunal Watch's eye on Twitter in the week beginning 25 March 2013, during which an employment tribunal, in the postscript in Fraser v University & College Union (on the UK Judiciary website), heavily criticised a trade union member's use of race and religious harassment claims to challenge what he perceived to be its "institutionalised anti-Semitism" in the Israel/Palestine debate.

Meanwhile, over on XpertHR's Employment Intelligence blog, my colleague Ellie Gelder has, in the first of a monthly series, rounded up some important employment cases in March and explained what employers need to do about them.

Without wanting to be a killjoy, Red Nose Day on Friday 15 March is a good time to remind employers of two employment tribunal decisions drawn from the XpertHR case law archive suggesting that employees and line managers sometimes get the tone wrong during themed charity days in the workplace.

Sexual orientation harassment against gay man during charity fancy-dress day
X v Y ET/1605521/09
In this case, the employment tribunal found that a gay employee was harassed at a workplace fancy-dress event that he could not opt out of and that lent itself to banter of a sexual nature that could easily offend.

Irish claimant discriminated against during Red Nose Day
Neylan v Royal Berkshire Fire Authority ET/2701259/03
In this case, the employment tribunal found that an Irish employee was discriminated against as a result of a one-off incident during Red Nose Day. As part of a list of "sins" to raise money for Red Nose Day, "being Irish £1" was written on the whiteboard in the employer's control room.

Of course, as the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Heafield v Times Newspaper Ltd EAT/1305/12 reminded us, the context of actions or remarks can often be critical when assessing whether or not they constituted harassment. Tribunals are likely, but not guaranteed, to take a more lenient view if the alleged actions (if not too serious) were due to hijinks or over-excitement during a themed day at work.

Photo: osde8info

A round-up of links to stories about employment tribunal rulings reported in the week beginning 4 March 2013, including an employment tribunal finding that a bagpipes instructor who taught part time at an independent school in Scotland is self-employed and not an employee.

Craigclowan School bagpipes instructor loses tribunal claim (on the Courier website) A bagpipes instructor who taught at a Perth independent school for more than 16 years has lost his bid to be given the same status as other members of staff.

We round up what caught Tribunal Watch's eye on Twitter in the week beginning 4 March 2013, during which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), faced with contradictory first-instance decisions on s.108(7) of the Equality Act 2010, ruled in Rowstock and another v Jessemey and another that the Act cannot be interpreted to cover post-employment victimisation.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Heafield v Times Newspaper Ltd highlights again that the context of a remark can often be critical when assessing whether or not it constituted harassment. We look at 10 examples of employment tribunals considering the context in which alleged harassment has taken place.

Age discrimination: "joke" email from manager costs employer £1,500
Growcott v Home Office NIFET/85/09
A manager's joke about the claimant's age that might have been acceptable during a friendly chat was viewed very differently by the tribunal because it was made during a recruitment process.

"Ironside" nickname for wheelchair user was harassment
Davies v Remploy Ltd ET/2407487/09
This case is a good reminder of the difference between remarks that constitute unlawful harassment, and mere offensive language.

Discriminatory comments not directed at claimant were racial harassment
Morgan v Halls of Gloucester ET/1400498/09
A series of inappropriate comments about race by blue-collar workers, not necessarily directed at the claimant, were harassment, held this employment tribunal.

Manager's "sexual favours" remark was not sexual harassment
Dos Santos v Preview Services Ltd ET/2700170/10
In this case, the employment tribunal found that a manager's single remark, despite being of a sexual nature, was intended as a joke and did not amount to sexual harassment.

A round-up of links to news items on employment tribunal rulings in the week beginning 11 February 2013, including the employment judge excusing herself from a test caste discrimination claim after police officers visited her over 30 days into proceedings and handed over information that she felt biased her view of the case.

Employment tribunal hearing first claim for caste discrimination collapses (on the Guardian website) An employment tribunal hearing the first claim for caste discrimination has collapsed after information handed to the judge by police led the judge to recuse herself from the case.