In Quarcoopome v Sock Shop Holdings Ltd, the EAT holds that an originating application to an industrial tribunal, although it complained merely of "race discrimination", incorporated any claim which may be made on the grounds of race under the Race Relations Act 1976.
A well-qualified Afro-Caribbean woman did not suffer indirect race discrimination when she failed to secure a post in a department where all the staff had always been white, holds the EAT in Meikle v Nottinghamshire City Council.
East African Asian employees of a UK bank who were required to waive their right to have their African service with a "group" employer credited for pension purposes, had not suffered race discrimination, holds the Court of Appeal in Barclays Bank plc v Kapur and others.
A random selection procedure under which an employer picked 30 applicants from a pool of 500 with the required educational qualifications, was not in itself discriminatory, holds the EAT in Isonor v Department of Social Security.
In Board of Governors of St Matthias Church of England School v Crizzle (23 February 1993) EOR52D, the EAT overrules an industrial tribunal and holds that a condition that an applicant for a post as headteacher in a Church of England school had to be "a committed communicant Christian" was justifiable, notwithstanding that it had an adverse impact upon those of Asian origin.
In advertising for a headteacher who was a communicant in the Christian church, the governors of a Church of England voluntary aided school did not indirectly racially discriminate against an applicant of Asian origin, holds the EAT in Board of Governors of St Matthias Church of England School v Crizzle.
In Hampson v Department of Education and Science (7 June 1990) EOR33D, the House of Lords rules that the protection provided by s.41(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 for unlawful acts done "in pursuance of any instrument made under any enactment by a Minister of the Crown" is confined to acts done in necessary performance of an express obligation contained in the instrument.
In Hampson v Department of Education and Science, the Court of Appeal rules that the exemption in s.41 of the Race Relations Act 1976 for acts done in pursuance of statutory authority does not extend to all acts done under a statute or statutory instrument.
In Hampson v Department of Education and Science (2.12.88) EOR24A, the Court of Appeal says that the test for whether an indirectly discriminatory requirement or condition is "justifiable" requires an objective balance between the discriminatory effect of the condition and the reasonable needs of the party who applies the condition.
In Meer v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (26.5.88) EOR21G, the Court of Appeal rules that it is bound by its previous decision in Perera v Civil Service Commission to hold that a selection criterion can only be a "requirement or condition" within the meaning of s.1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA) if it is a "must".
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect race discrimination.