Updated to include information on Unite the Union v Nailard, in which the EAT considered the union's liability for harassment by two of its elected branch officers against an employee.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal decision that a regional law firm was not guilty of age discrimination against one of its partners. DLA Piper's Jenna Clarke summarises the decision.
An employment tribunal has held that a rejected job applicant was not subject to age discrimination where the employer selected a younger, less experienced candidate.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that, in cases involving direct discrimination in the workplace, it is the motive of the decision-maker that is important and not those who may have influenced the decision. Imogen Noons explains the importance of this for employers.
David Malamatenios is a partner at Colman Coyle Solicitors. He rounds up the latest rulings.
David Malamatenios is a partner in the employment department at Colman Coyle Solicitors. He rounds up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a limited company can bring a claim of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
Two young sisters who resigned from their jobs in a service station after what they felt was aggressive and unfair criticism have won their claims for age and sex discrimination in an employment tribunal.
In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (no 2)  IRLR 748 EAT, the EAT held that a compulsory retirement age of 65 for partners in a law firm was objectively justified age discrimination. Superior courts had already determined that there were legitimate aims for the policy, and the only issue remaining for the tribunal was whether or not 65 was reasonably necessary for achieving them. The tribunal did not err in concluding that it was.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct age discrimination.