London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2) [1997] IRLR 157 EAT

Reports relating to this case:

  • Sex discrimination: Comparing proportionate impact of "requirement or condition"

    Date:
    15 April 1997

    An industrial tribunal was entitled to conclude that the proportion of female train operators who could comply with a new roster (95.2%) was "considerably smaller" than the proportion of male train operators who could do so (100%), holds the EAT in London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2).

  • Shift arrangements indirectly discriminatory

    Date:
    1 March 1997

    In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2) (13 January 1997), the EAT upholds a finding that a rostering system requiring an early morning start had an adverse impact on women, even though only one of 21 women train drivers positively complained about the arrangements.

  • Rostering disadvantaged single mother

    Date:
    1 March 1997

    In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2) the EAT upholds a finding that new rostering arrangements indirectly discriminated against a female train operator who was a single parent.