Updated to include information on Jeffery v The British Council, in which the EAT identified the main factors that connected an expatriate employee working in Bangladesh to Great Britain and British employment law.
In Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey and Equality & Human Rights Commission  IRLR 439 EAT, the EAT held that the Equality Act 2010 does not provide protection against post-employment victimisation.
In this age discrimination case, the employment tribunal found that staff in a school conspired to force out a highly paid older teacher as a way of cutting costs.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the Equality Act 2010 cannot be interpreted to cover post-employment victimisation.
This employment tribunal decision highlights a drafting error in the Equality Act 2010 that means that post-employment victimisation is not covered. The decision that the claimant's post-employment victimisation claim could not proceed contrasts with the first-instance decision in Taiwo v Olaigbe and another ET/2389629/11, in which the employment tribunal allowed the same sort of claim to be heard.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to age-related victimisation.