In Harvest Town Circle Ltd v Rutherford the EAT has allowed an appeal against a finding that the exclusion of employees age 65 and over from the right not to be unfairly dismissed or to receive a redundancy payment is indirectly discriminatory against men and contrary to Article 141 of the EU Treaty.
A school's governing body failed to justify the requirement imposed by the school's redundancy policy that, whatever their length of service, staff on fixed-term contracts could not qualify for the redundancy avoidance selection process, holds the Court of Appeal in Whiffen v Milham Ford Girls School and another.
Despite the fact that, in appointing a "special adviser", the Lord Chancellor had applied a requirement that any appointee should be personally known to him, there was no disproportionate impact on gender or racial grounds, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chancellor's "area of association" was likely to be "skewed" against women and ethnic minorities, holds the EAT in The Lord Chancellor and another v Coker and Osamor.
Interpreting a national rule in such a way as to prevent comparisons between part-time and full-time workers during a selection process for redundancy did not contravene the Equal Treatment Directive, rules the European Court of Justice in Kachelmann v Bankhaus Hermann Lampe KG.
A female police officer who was refused a part-time position because she was unable to meet the force's unjustifiable part-time hours requirement was indirectly discriminated against, holds a Bristol employment tribunal (Chair: C F Sara) in Chew v Chief Constable Avon & Somerset Constabulary.
In order to determine whether a set of provisions governing the exercise of a professional activity were indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex, a court has to make a separate, not an overall, assessment of each of the key provisions, the ECJ rules in Jorgensen v Foreningen af Speciallaeger and Sygesikringens Forhandlingsudvalg.
In R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Seymour-Smith and another (No.2), the House of Lords holds, by a majority, that the extension of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one year to two years in 1985 had a considerably greater adverse impact on women than men in 1991 so as to amount to indirect discrimination for the purposes of (what was then) Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome.
In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (No.2) (17 February 2000) EOR90A, the House of Lords has ruled that the Secretary of State was objectively justified under European law in increasing the unfair dismissal qualifying period from one to two years in 1985 and in maintaining it in 1991, when the applicants were dismissed, notwithstanding that the qualifying period indirectly discriminated against women.
In Maidment v The European Commission, the EAT holds that the European Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction in employment disputes relating to candidates for employment with, and employees of, institutions of the European Community, including the Commission.
A judicial award of compensation for breach of the right not to be unfairly dismissed constitutes "pay" within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, rules the European Court of Justice in R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect sex discrimination.