Topics

Sex discrimination

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 January 1981
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Page v Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd

    In Page v Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd [1981] IRLR 13 EAT, the EAT held that the employer was protected by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 51(1) because refusing to allow the employee to transport dimethyl formamide was necessary to comply with the employer's duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was not an act of excessive caution.

  • Date:
    1 November 1979
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence

    In Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence [1979] IRLR 436 CA, the Court of Appeal held that "subjecting to detriment" in the context of discrimination by employers, does not mean anything more than "putting under a disadvantage".

  • Date:
    1 March 1979
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Pointon v The University of Sussex

    In Pointon v The University of Sussex [1979] IRLR 119 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claim under the Equal Pay Act could not be sustained because there was no term in her contract of employment that was less favourable than the equivalent term in the contract of the man with whom she was comparing herself.

  • Date:
    1 September 1977
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: EAT rules dress and appearance standards not discriminatory

    Rules which lay down standards of dress and appearance for both women and men are unlikely to constitute unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex, even if they impose different requirements on women (such as prohibition on wearing trousers) than on men, based on the difference in sexes. This is the principle which emerges from the recent EAT case of Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops.

  • Date:
    15 August 1977
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: EAT says "justifiable" means "necessary"

    In the same way that the EAT's interpretations resuscitated the Equal Pay Act, recent decisions would now appear to be giving the Sex Discrimination Act a new lease of life. In Price v The Civil Service Commission and Steel v The Post Office, the EAT takes the same broad, commonsense approach to the indirect discrimination provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act that it has to the like work provisions of the Equal Pay Act.