Employee specifications

New and updated

  • Burden on employer to rebut statistical evidence

    Date:
    1 September 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Greater Manchester Police Authority v Lea (26 April 1990) EOR33C, the EAT holds that statistical perfection is not required to establish disparate impact in an indirect discrimination case. An employer disputing the complainant's statistics can put in its own rebuttal evidence.

  • "Requirement" must be absolute bar to be indirectly discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1988
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Meer v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (26.5.88) EOR21G, the Court of Appeal rules that it is bound by its previous decision in Perera v Civil Service Commission to hold that a selection criterion can only be a "requirement or condition" within the meaning of s.1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA) if it is a "must".

  • Pool for comparison should be restricted to qualified applicants

    Date:
    1 September 1988
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Pearse v City of Bradford Metropolitan Council (15.3.88) EOR21H, the EAT holds that the appropriate pool for comparison for the purpose of determining whether an eligibility requirement for a job has a disproportionate impact should be composed of those who are otherwise qualified for the post.

  • Selection criterion not "requirement or condition"

    Date:
    1 November 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Meer v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (15.5.87) EOR16C, the EAT rules that in order to found a claim of indirect discrimination upon the basis of a selection criterion with a disproportionate impact, the criterion must be obligatory and operate as an absolute bar.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to use of employee specifications in recruitment.