Updated to include information on Michalak v General Medical Council and others, in which the Supreme Court held that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a discrimination claim against the General Medical Council.
In this case, the employer victimised an employee after it found out that she was pursuing tribunal claims against her former employer, showing the wide protection that the Equality Act 2010 gives against victimisation.
Sarah Wade, Rosie Kight, Amy Ross-Sercombe, Kate Edminson and Lydia Newman are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
In Deer v Walford and another EAT/0283/10, the EAT held that replies to a statutory discrimination questionnaire were "transparently genuine" and that there was no justification for drawing inferences of victimisation.
This case is a prime example of the problems that can occur in a workplace when a member of staff is undergoing IVF treatment in a bid to get pregnant.
Claire Benson is managing associate and Helen Corbett, Sinead Jones, Helen Ward and Tori O'Neil are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the process for deciding what, if any, inferences should be drawn from answers to a statutory discrimination questionnaire is no different from the steps that tribunals should take in any other case where an inference of discriminatory behaviour is sought to be drawn.
In Martin v Devonshires Solicitors EAT/0086/10, the EAT held that, where an employer dismisses an employee in response to his or her protected act, the employer may not have unlawfully victimised the employee where the reason for the dismissal was some feature of the protected act that can be treated as separable.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that, where an employer dismisses an employee in response to his or her protected act, the employer may not have unlawfully victimised the employee where the reason for dismissal is some feature of the protected act that can be treated as separable.
In St Andrews Catholic Primary School and others v Blundell EAT/0330/09, the EAT held that the appropriate award of compensation for injury to a victimised employee's feelings was £14,000, not £22,000, reflecting that it was a serious case falling within the middle Vento band. The tribunal's award of £5,000 in aggravated damages was, however, appropriate.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex-related victimisation.