-
expand
H v X Primary School ET/1500957/2012
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Habermann-Beltermann v Arbeiterwohlfahrt, Bezirksverband Ndb/Opf eV [1994] IRLR 364 ECJ
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 July 1994
In Habermann-Beltermann v Arbeiterwohlfahrt, Bezirksverband Ndb/Opf eV (5 May 1994) EOR56B, the European Court of Justice holds that termination of a contract without a fixed term on account of a woman's pregnancy cannot be justified on the ground that a statutory prohibition, imposed because of pregnancy, temporarily prevents the employee from performing night work.
-
- Date:
- 1 June 1994
The EC "Equal Treatment" Directive prevents an indefinite contract of employment for night work entered into by an employer and a pregnant woman, both of whom were unaware of the pregnancy at that time, from being void on account of a statutory prohibition on night work by pregnant or breastfeeding women, holds the European Court of Justice in Habermann-Beltermann v Arbeiterwohlfahrt, Bezirksverband Ndb/Opf eV.
-
expand
Hacking & Paterson and another v Wilson EAT/0054/09
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 15 February 2011
In Hacking & Paterson and another v Wilson EAT/0054/09, the EAT held that, where a woman employed as a property manager claimed indirect sex discrimination following the refusal of her flexible working request on her return from maternity leave, the pool for comparison should exclude those property managers with no interest in flexible working.
-
- Date:
- 15 February 2011
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has reaffirmed that in a claim for indirect sex discrimination where the complaint is based on an employer's refusal to grant a benefit, the appropriate pool of comparators should include only those employees who want the benefit.
-
expand
Haddon v Van den Bergh Foods Ltd [1999] IRLR 672 EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Hagen and others v ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 31 HC
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 19 February 2002
In the recent case of Hagen and others v ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd and others 2001 IRLR 31, the High Court considered the claims of a number of ex-ICI employees regarding representations made to them prior to a transfer to a new company.
-
- Date:
- 15 February 2002
In Hagen and others v ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd, the High Court holds that on the facts, an employer owed a duty to take reasonable care as to the truth of statements made to its employees in relation to a TUPE transfer.
-
expand
Hailstones v Staffordshire County Council 7 July 1997 CA
(1 report relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 1 June 1998
In Hailstones v Staffordshire County Council, the Court of Appeal holds that it was an implied term of an employee's contract that he had a right to appeal against the imposition of a disciplinary sanction - in this case a transfer to a different workplace - as an alternative to dismissal, in view of the fact that the contract contained express rights of appeal against a decision to dismiss and against warnings imposed in accordance with the disciplinary procedure.
-
expand
Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642 CA
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 29 August 2008
In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.
-
- Date:
- 10 July 2008
The Court of Appeal has held that a protective award for an insolvent company's failure to consult on redundancies should have been paid out of the company's assets by the liquidator and not by the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
-
expand
Hainge v BE Enterprise Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 100 (Sep) EAT
(1 report relating to this case)
-
expand
Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence [2014] IRLR 728 CA
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 31 January 2015
In Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence [2014] IRLR 728 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the principle of associative discrimination does not extend to an employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments.
-
- Date:
- 17 June 2014
The Court of Appeal has upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling that art.5 of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) which covers reasonable accommodation for disabled people in employment, is limited to measures for the assistance of disabled employees, and does not cover adjustments for individuals who have an association with a disabled person.
-
expand
Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence EAT/0227/13
(2 reports relating to this case)
-
- Date:
- 4 May 2014
In Hainsworth v Ministry of Defence EAT/0227/13, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there is no arguable case that an employer was under a duty of reasonable adjustment in relation to a non-disabled employee who requested a change of job location for the benefit of her disabled daughter.
-
- Date:
- 23 October 2013
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that employers do not have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where an individual, typically a carer, has an association with a disabled person.