Topics

Victimisation

New and updated

  • Date:
    28 February 2014
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Equality Act 2010 covers post-employment victimisation, decides Court of Appeal

    The Court of Appeal has held that the Equality Act 2010 can be interpreted to cover post-employment victimisation, resolving the conflict created by two contradictory EAT decisions on this issue.

  • Date:
    1 November 2013
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    James Buckle, Gerri Hurst, Joelle Parkinson, Chris McAvoy and Helen Samuel are associate solicitors at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.

  • Date:
    1 May 2011
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Victimisation: There may be a valid distinction between a protected act and "genuinely separable" features of consequences of that act

    In Martin v Devonshires Solicitors EAT/0086/10, the EAT held that, where an employer dismisses an employee in response to his or her protected act, the employer may not have unlawfully victimised the employee where the reason for the dismissal was some feature of the protected act that can be treated as separable.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    In what circumstances might an employee make a claim of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010?

  • Date:
    11 July 2007
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Victimisation: Employer went beyond what was reasonable

    In St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire and others [2007] IRLR 504 HL, the House of Lords held that an employer that wrote to a number of equal pay litigants and their colleagues warning of potential job losses if they continued with their claims victimised them contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  • Date:
    1 October 2005
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round up

    Sally Logan, associate at Addleshaw Goddard, brings you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provides advice on what to do about them.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    What constitutes a detriment?

  • Date:
    15 August 1999
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Race discrimination: Conscious motivation is not a prerequisite for victimisation

    It was a sufficient basis for a claim of victimisation for an unsuccessful job applicant to show that those who had interviewed him were subconsciously influenced by their knowledge of the fact that he had previously done a protected act, holds the House of Lords in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport.

  • Date:
    15 October 1998
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Ex-employees must have legal remedy against victimisation

    The EC Equal Treatment Directive requires member states to provide judicial protection for those whose former employers react to their bringing claims of sex discrimination against them during their employment by refusing their requests for a reference, rules the European Court of Justice in Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd.

  • Date:
    1 September 1995
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Lecturer victimised for bringing race claim

    A university lecturer was unlawfully victimised for bringing race discrimination proceedings against his employer when his application for promotion was unfairly considered and when he was placed last on a list of people entitled to performance-related pay so that he stood little or no chance of receiving such pay, rules a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: G H K Meeran) in Majid v London Guildhall University.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to victimisation.

Victimisation: key resources