This week's case roundup from Eversheds, covering company car policy and sex discrimination.
Government needs to clarify what residual liability companiesretain after employees have left, particularly over discrimination. By Jonathan Chamberlain, partner in the employment team at Wragge & Co.
In Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Snaith v McGinley, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal erred in law in rejecting the comparators put forward by the employer in a claim of victimisation under the Sex Discrimination Act.
In R v The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police; ex parte Bennion, the Court of Appeal holds that the Chief Constable could properly adjudicate in disciplinary proceedings brought against an officer in his force, although he had been cited as respondent in pending tribunal proceedings of sex discrimination and victimisation brought by that officer against another officer.
Continuing our regular series spelling out the implications of important cases which have been heard recently in the appeal courts.
In O'Donaghue v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, the Court of Appeal upholds an employment tribunal's conclusion that an unfairly dismissed employee would in any event have been fairly dismissed no later than six months after the effective date of termination of her employment.
In Vogler v British Dental Association, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that the British Dental Association did not on the facts victimise one of its own employees, who acted merely as the representative of an employee of an NHS trust who was experiencing problems with the trust, for alleging that the trust had committed an act of unlawful sex discrimination against that other employee.
In Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper, the Court of Appeal upholds the decision of the EAT that the employment tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider a free-standing claim of sex discrimination related to an act that took place after employment had ended.
An employment tribunal erred in finding that a contract of employment where payment was set at a level that did not interfere with the employee's receipt of state benefits was tainted by illegality preventing the employee from making a sex discrimination claim, holds the EAT in Chilton v HM Prison Service.
In Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd (No.2) (19 May 1999) EOR87B, the EAT rules that it is possible to construe the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 so as to enable a claimant to make a victimisation complaint in respect of events that occurred after the employment relationship had terminated.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex-related victimisation.