Indirect discrimination

New and updated

  • Time limit on retrospective claims

    Date:
    1 May 1996
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Biggs v Somerset County Council (26 January 1996) EOR67A, the Court of Appeal holds that it was "reasonably practicable" for a part-time employee to have brought an unfair dismissal complaint within the requisite three months from her dismissal in 1976, notwithstanding that she was excluded under UK law by reason that she worked insufficient hours.

  • Broad margin of discretion for Member States

    Date:
    1 May 1996
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Nolte v Landesversicherungsanstalt Hannover (14 December 1995) EOR67B, the European Court of Justice rules that the exclusion of low-paid, part-time workers from the German statutory social security scheme is permissible, even though considerably more women than men are affected.

  • Unintentional indirect discrimination and EC law

    Date:
    1 November 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In MacMillan v Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council (16 June 1995) EOR64D, the EAT holds that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not allow an award of compensation for unintentional indirect discrimination. However, the EAT hints that the statutory bar on such an award does not accord with the Equal Treatment Directive.

  • Qualifying period for unfair dismissal is discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (31 July 1995) EOR63A, the Court of Appeal declares that the two-year qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal indirectly discriminated against women and was incompatible with the EEC Equal Treatment Directive as at the date of the applicants' dismissal in May 1991.

  • Mobility clause challenged

    Date:
    1 September 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Meade-Hill and another v British Council (7 April 1995), the Court of Appeal holds that a contractual mobility clause was capable of challenge on grounds that it was indirectly sex discriminatory, notwithstanding that the term had not yet been invoked, and that it was a term with an adverse impact upon women because a higher proportion of women than men are secondary earners who would find it impossible to move their workplace to a destination which involved a change of home. The Court of Appeal does not deal, however, with whether the mobility clause was justifiable.

  • Sex discrimination: "Intentional" indirect discrimination finding upheld

    Date:
    1 August 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In London Underground Ltd v Edwards, the EAT considers the issue of when indirect sex (or race) discrimination should be regarded as "intentional" so as to be capable of attracting an award of compensation.

  • Indirect discrimination compensation

    Date:
    1 July 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (15 March 1995) EOR62B, the EAT rules that an inference of intentional discrimination can be drawn from an employer's knowledge of the unfavourable consequences resulting from application of an indirectly discriminatory requirement, so as to justify an award of compensation.

  • Sex discrimination: Mobility clause indirectly discriminatory against women

    Date:
    1 May 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Meade-Hill and another v The British Council, the Court of Appeal holds that the inclusion of a mobility clause in a married woman's contract of employment constituted indirect discrimination against her as a woman under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  • Sex discrimination: Same test for indirect discrimination under UK and EC law

    Date:
    1 March 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    The test for establishing indirect discrimination in relation to pay under Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome is essentially the same as the test which applies under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, holds the EAT in Staffordshire County Council v Black.

  • Sex discrimination: Two-year qualifying period not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 November 1994
    Type:
    Law reports

    It would be inappropriate for a court to grant private sector employees an order quashing the two-year qualifying period for an unfair dismissal complaint because of its alleged incompatibility with the EC "Equal Treatment" Directive, holds the High Court in R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect sex discrimination.