Georgina Kyriacou and David Malamatenios are partners and Sandra Martins, Colin Makin and Krishna Santra are associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
In this case, an employer was held to be legally responsible for the discriminatory actions of another company's employee, who was found to be an agent of the employer under the Race Relations Act 1976. Under that Act (and the Equality Act 2010, which replaced it), an employer is liable for the conduct of another party where that party is acting as an agent under the employer's authority.
This case is a good example of how an employer should deal with a complaint of discrimination.
In this case, the employment tribunal awarded an NHS worker, who was dismissed from his senior position in the NHS, close to £1m for race discrimination, despite the tribunal's refusal to increase the award for future loss of earnings on the basis of the worker's argument that he might have been promoted before he retired.
In this case, a company was held to have harassed and directly discriminated against an employee on the ground of his race in the two weeks he worked for it.
This is a classic example of an ill-advised workplace nickname resulting in a successful discrimination claim.
In Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd EAT/0288/10, the EAT held that an employment tribunal acted correctly in rejecting a claim of harassment under the Race Relations Act 1976 against an employer that failed to take action to prevent third-party harassment.
This case concerns whether or not a Sikh prison officer should be allowed to wear a ceremonial dagger in the workplace.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered employers' liability for discriminatory acts committed by agency workers.
A series of inappropriate comments about race by blue-collar workers, not necessarily directed at the claimant, were harassment, holds the employment tribunal.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to race-related harassment.