Indirect discrimination

New and updated

  • Age exclusion appeal remitted

    Date:
    1 September 2001
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex discrimination: Employer failed to justify policy of making fixed-term employees redundant first

    Date:
    15 May 2001
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex and race discrimination: Appointment of "special adviser" did not amount to indirect discrimination

    Date:
    15 February 2001
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex discrimination: Lack of comparability between part-time and full-time workers did not breach Equal Treatment Directive

    Date:
    15 December 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Unjustifiable part-time policy

    Date:
    1 September 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex discrimination: Considerations of budget alone cannot justify discrimination

    Date:
    15 May 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex discrimination: Extension of unfair dismissal qualifying period was compatible with Article 119

    Date:
    15 March 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Unfair dismissal qualifying period upheld

    Date:
    1 March 2000
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Tribunal jurisdiction: EC employment disputes justiciable only in ECJ

    Date:
    15 June 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Sex discrimination: Legality of two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection still unclear

    Date:
    1 March 1999
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

About this topic

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