Topics

Race discrimination

New and updated

  • Date:
    28 January 2005
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Race discrimination: Alleged discriminator's racist motive relevant, but not required

    In Madden v Preferred Technical Group Cha Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal holds that the tribunal did not misdirect itself by stating that conscious or deliberate motivation was immaterial in cases of discrimination.

  • Date:
    3 September 2004
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Discrimination: Employee's illegal acts prevent race discrimination remedy

    In V v Addey & Stanhope School, the Court of Appeal holds that the extent of the employee's illegal and criminal conduct was such that it prevented him from pursuing a race discrimination claim.

  • Date:
    19 March 2004
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Race discrimination: Recovering compensation for psychiatric damage

    In Laing Ltd v Essa, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee who suffered unlawful race discrimination which caused him psychiatric injury was entitled to recover compensation for that injury provided he could establish that the discrimination caused the damage.

  • Date:
    31 December 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    London Borough of Southwark v Ayton

    In London Borough of Southwark v Ayton EAT/515/03, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's reasoning in finding victimisation and its recommendation that the respondent should arrange training in respect of racial awareness for the person held to have victimised the claimant, but remitted the claim to the employment tribunal to consider whether the allegation made by the claimant was false and not made in good faith.

  • Date:
    1 November 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Date:
    15 August 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Discrimination: Employers liable for post-termination discrimination

    In Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper and related cases the House of Lords interprets anti-discrimination legislation to mean that employees should be protected against certain acts of post-termination discrimination by their employer.

  • Date:
    3 July 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Equal pay and sex discrimination: New guidance on burden of proof in sex discrimination claims

    In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.

  • Date:
    1 July 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Date:
    21 March 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Race and sex discrimination: Proper approach to issue of continuing acts of discrimination

    In Hendricks v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal did not err in law in deciding that it had jurisdiction to hear a police officer's race and sex discrimination complaints, notwithstanding that none of the numerous alleged incidents of discriminatory treatment complained of occurred in the three-month period preceding the presentation of her originating application.

  • Date:
    1 September 2002
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Yeboah v Crofton

    In Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee can be made personally liable for acts of unlawful discrimination committed by him or her in the course of his or her employment against a fellow employee, even though the employer is held not to be legally liable for its conduct because it took reasonably practicable steps to prevent its employee from doing the act in question.