In Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) and Fletcher and others v Midland Bank plc (No.2) the House of Lords holds that the six-month limitation period laid down in s.2(4) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 does not breach the principle of equivalence.
In Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No.2) (8 February 2001), the House of Lords rules that an employer cannot rely on the two-year limit in s.2(5) of the Equal Pay Act to prevent an applicant from retroactively gaining membership of an occupational pension scheme. Part-time workers who were discriminated against in respect of access to a pension scheme can claim membership in respect of a period of employment back to 8 April 1976 or to the date of commencement of employment, whichever is the later, so long as relevant pension contributions are paid by the employer.
A delay caused by an incomplete internal appeals process will not invariably lead to an extension of time to bring a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("the DDA"), holds the EAT in Robinson v The Post Office.
An applicant subjected to three separate acts of unintentional racial discrimination, carried out by different people at different times, could not successfully argue that there was a continuing act of racial discrimination for the purposes of s.68(7) of the Race Relations Act 1976 ("the RRA"), holds the EAT in Arube v Devon Probation Service.
An employment tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 if the claimant lodged it within six months of the termination of her contract of employment, holds the Court of Appeal in National Power plc v Young.
Community law precludes a national procedural rule which provides that a claimant's pensionable service is to be calculated only by reference to service after a date falling no earlier than two years prior to the date of the claim, rules the European Court of Justice in Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others and Fletcher and others v Midland Bank plc.
In Deutsche Telekom AG v Schröder, Deutsche Telekom AG v Vick and another and Deutsche Post AG v Sievers and another, the ECJ rules that, where the exclusion of part-time workers from an occupational pension scheme constitutes indirect discrimination prohibited by (what was) Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141 EC), the impossibility of relying on the direct effect of that Article in respect of periods of employment before 8 April 1976 does not preclude such periods from being taken into account under national legislation laying down a principle of equal treatment by virtue of which all part-time workers are entitled to retroactive membership of an occupational pension scheme, and to receive a pension under that scheme.
This is the first of two articles rounding up recent case law on employment tribunal and EAT practice and procedure.
In Post Office v Sanhotra, the EAT holds that if an employee is induced to resign by a fraudulent misrepresentation by the employer, it is at least arguable that it was the employer who really terminated the employment.
In Irshad Ali v Courtaulds Textiles Ltd, the Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by a retired cotton-mill worker whose claim for damages for deafness was dismissed for being out of time. The Court says that the worker's "personal circumstances" meant that he was isolated and that the "date of knowledge" of his injury was therefore later than it might otherwise have been.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment tribunal and court time limits.