In Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan, the House of Lords holds - unanimously - that an employee was not victimised when his employer refused to provide him with a reference for new employment while race discrimination proceedings brought by the employee were continuing.
Two apparently contradictory judgements address whether treatment must have any material consequences to constitute a detriment under discrimination law. Plus, cases on Tupe, termination payments and unfair dismissal for misconduct unrelated to employment
Continuing our regular series spelling out the implications of important cases which have been heard recently in the appeal courts.
This week's case roundup, covering the meaning of a "detriment" within race discrimination and payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment.
An ice hockey player who did not require a work permit to gain employment in the UK could not compare himself with those players who did require a work permit for the purposes of his race discrimination claim, holds the EAT in Henry v Ice Hockey Super League Ltd.
In Fasipe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority a London South employment tribunal (Chair: G H K Meeran) has awarded compensation of £224,949 for race discrimination and victimisation.
The EAT finds a tribunal's decision 'perverse' in failing to follow established guidelines when determining a plaintiff's employment status. Plus cases on TUPE, race discrimination and victimisation.
Where there was a shortlist of two equally well-qualified candidates, one white and the other black, an employment tribunal's conclusion that the selection of the former in preference to the latter had nothing to do with the latter's race was not arrived at after proper consideration of the indicators that the latter relied on as pointing to an opposite conclusion, holds the Court of Appeal in Anya v University of Oxford and another.
In Fasuyi v London Borough of Greenwich, the EAT holds that a tribunal does not invariably make an error of law if, having s.56(1)(c) of the Race Relations Act 1976 ("the RRA") in mind, it does not make a recommendation under that subsection because none is sought by the applicant.
In Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v Burton, the EAT holds that there is no reason why the word "dismissal" in the Race Relations Act 1976 should be construed so as to exclude constructive dismissal.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct race discrimination.