An employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider a complaint that the decision not to reinstate an unfairly dismissed employee had been caused by continuing race discrimination and victimisation, holds the Court of Appeal in D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth.
In Ledeatte v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, the EAT holds that an employee claiming to have been victimised had, in order to establish the necessary causal link between the less favourable treatment she complained of and a previous complaint she had brought against her employer under the Race Relations Act, to show that the individuals who had mistreated her had actual knowledge of that protected act.
In TNT Express Worldwide (UK) Ltd v Brown, the Court of Appeal holds that the comparator of an employee who was refused time off work, because he had brought proceedings against the employer under the Race Relations Act 1976, was another employee who asked for time off rather than one who had sued the employer other than under that Act.
To identify the appropriate comparator of a police sergeant in relation to whom a reference was not provided by his employer, it was necessary to compare the manner in which other officers in relation to whom a reference was requested would normally be treated with the way in which he was treated, holds the Court of Appeal in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and others v Khan.
In Nagarajan v London Regional Transport (15 July 1999) EOR87A, the House of Lords holds that conscious motivation on the part of the discriminator is not a necessary ingredient of unlawful victimisation.
It was a sufficient basis for a claim of victimisation for an unsuccessful job applicant to show that those who had interviewed him were subconsciously influenced by their knowledge of the fact that he had previously done a protected act, holds the House of Lords in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport.
In the context of a victimisation complaint under the Race Relations Act, the composition, characteristics and circumstances of the appropriate control group, for the purposes of demonstrating that the person allegedly victimised was treated less favourably than others, is not solely a matter of law but is a matter for the discretion of the tribunal after hearing submissions by the parties, holds the EAT in TNT Express Worldwide (UK) Ltd v Brown and others.
In London Borough of Lambeth v D'Souza, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to increase an award of compensation for unlawful race discrimination which was made before the Act that removed the cap on such awards came into force.
The concept of victimisation under the Race Relations Act requires the discriminator to have a motive which is consciously connected with that legislation, confirms the Court of Appeal in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport.
In HM Prison Service and others v Johnson, the EAT upholds an award of £21,000 for injury to feelings made by an industrial tribunal to a black prison officer who was subjected to a prolonged campaign of racial harassment and discrimination.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to race-related victimisation.