The Government consults on caste discrimination.
In this podcast, XpertHR consultant editor Darren Newman considers James v Eastleigh Borough Council, concerning a man who had to pay 75p to go swimming, whereas his wife was admitted for free. Darren looks at its relevance in respect of more recent cases regarding the treatment of migrant workers.
Updated to include information on Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker, in which the EAT considered the employer's liability for victimisation by an agent surveillance company it had appointed.
The Government Equalities Office has published a public consultation on caste discrimination, following a 2013 legislative option to add "caste" to the definition of "race" under the Equality Act 2010.
In Onu v Akwiwu and another; Taiwo v Olaigbe and another  IRLR 719 SC, the Supreme Court held that migrant domestic workers who were mistreated by their employers, the opportunity for which was afforded by their immigration status, were not subject to direct discrimination on grounds of their nationality. While immigration status is a function of nationality, nationality of itself was not the reason for the treatment.
The Supreme Court has held that the mistreatment of two migrant workers on the basis of their immigration status did not amount to race discrimination.
A claimant who brought a groundbreaking caste discrimination case has been awarded £183,774 for unlawful deductions from wages, with further compensation to come for race discrimination.
In Chandok and another v Tirkey  IRLR 195 EAT, the EAT held that discrimination on the ground of caste is capable of falling within the meaning of race discrimination in s.9(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a caste discrimination claim can be pursued under the Equality Act 2010.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the meaning of race for the purposes of the race discrimination legislation.