Updated to include information on XC Trains Ltd v CD and others, in which the EAT considered whether or not the employer's requirement to work on Saturdays was justifiable indirect sex discrimination.
In Geller and another v Yeshurun Hebrew Congregation, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered when in a discrimination case it is necessary to enquire further into the motivation and mental process of the employer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that in cases where direct discrimination is not inherent from the act complained of, a tribunal must enquire further into the motivation, unconscious or subconscious, of the alleged discriminator.
In Lyons v DWP Jobcentre Plus EAT/0348/13, the EAT upheld an employment tribunal's decision that an employee who was treated unfavourably and dismissed by reason of absence for post-natal depression after the end of her maternity leave was not discriminated against under s.18 or s.13 of the Equality Act 2010.
Ford has successfully justified its policy of paying men on additional paternity leave the statutory minimum, while at the same time offering generous enhanced maternity pay to women on maternity leave.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the bands of compensation for injury to feelings caused by unlawful discrimination should be uplifted by 10%. The EAT also held that an employee must make a complaint in writing to trigger a formal grievance procedure.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that it was not direct sex discrimination or pregnancy and maternity discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 for an employer eventually to dismiss an employee who was on long-term sick leave for post-natal depression that continued long after her maternity leave had ended.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer's false explanation given for the withdrawal of a flexible working arrangement in evidence during a tribunal hearing reversed the burden of proof in a direct sex discrimination claim.
The employer in this tribunal case successfully defended a man's sex discrimination claim over the common issue of its dress and appearance code applying different rules to men and women.
This decision is a reminder to employers and employees that it is possible for a heterosexual employee to be subjected to sexual orientation discrimination, even if the harasser knows that the employee is not gay.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct sex discrimination.