This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Sex discrimination: "Intentional" indirect discrimination finding upheld

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    London Underground Ltd v Edwards [1995] IRLR 355 EAT (2 other reports)

    • Indirect discrimination compensation

      Date:
      1 July 1995

      In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (15 March 1995) EOR62B, the EAT rules that an inference of intentional discrimination can be drawn from an employer's knowledge of the unfavourable consequences resulting from application of an indirectly discriminatory requirement, so as to justify an award of compensation.

    • Determining whether indirect discrimination is intentional

      Date:
      1 June 1995

      In London Underground Ltd v Edwards the EAT has held that in determining whether an indirectly discriminatory requirement or condition was applied with the intention to treat a woman less favourably on grounds of sex, so as to permit an award of compensation, intention can be inferred from an employer's knowledge of the unfavourable consequences for the claimant as a woman.

In London Underground Ltd v Edwards, the EAT considers the issue of when indirect sex (or race) discrimination should be regarded as "intentional" so as to be capable of attracting an award of compensation. According to the EAT, the relevant question is the intention with which the discriminatory requirement or condition was applied to the claimant by the employer.