This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Case round-up: Sex discrimination

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Hardys & Hansons plc v Lax [2005] IRLR 726 CA (2 other reports)

    • Fair enough

      Date:
      1 October 2005

      The Court of Appeal has held that the 'range of reasonable responses' test cannot be relied on by an employer seeking to justify an indirect sex discrimination claim. By Linda Farrell.

    • Sex discrimination: No 'range of reasonable responses' allowed in justification

      Date:
      26 August 2005

      In Hardys & Hansons plc v Lax, the Court of Appeal holds that the employment tribunal applied the correct objective justification test for indirect sex discrimination. There was no room for a "range of reasonable responses" test, as in unfair dismissal cases, as far as the employer's attempt at justification for discriminatory treatment was concerned.

This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering sex discrimination for a refusal to permit the job-share of a full-time role.

Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax,
Court of Appeal, 7 July 2005

The Court of Appeal confirmed in this case that an employer's refusal to permit the job-share of a full-time role was unlawful sex discrimination.