London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2) [1997] IRLR 157 EAT
Reports relating to this case:
-
Sex discrimination: Comparing proportionate impact of "requirement or condition"
- Date:
- 15 April 1997
An industrial tribunal was entitled to conclude that the proportion of female train operators who could comply with a new roster (95.2%) was "considerably smaller" than the proportion of male train operators who could do so (100%), holds the EAT in London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2).
-
Shift arrangements indirectly discriminatory
- Date:
- 1 March 1997
In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2) (13 January 1997), the EAT upholds a finding that a rostering system requiring an early morning start had an adverse impact on women, even though only one of 21 women train drivers positively complained about the arrangements.
-
Rostering disadvantaged single mother
- Date:
- 1 March 1997
In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2) the EAT upholds a finding that new rostering arrangements indirectly discriminated against a female train operator who was a single parent.
