Updated to include information on Unite the Union v Nailard, in which the EAT considered the union's liability for harassment by two of its elected branch officers against an employee.
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.
The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 prescribes that the Government must add "caste" to the definition of "race" under the Equality Act 2010.
In Okonu v G4S Security Services (UK) Ltd EAT/0035/07, the EAT held that the shifting burden of proof provisions in s.54A of the Race Relations Act 1976 are restricted to claims based on race or ethnic or national origin, and do not apply to claims based on colour or nationality.
Joe Glavina of Addleshaw Goddard outlines the latest legal rulings and explains what you need to do to avoid tribunals.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the meaning of race for the purposes of the race discrimination legislation.