All items: Sex discrimination

• expand

  Balgobin and Francis v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1987] IRLR 401 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Employers not liable for proven sexual harassment

    Date:

    1 September 1987

    In Balgobin and Francis v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (14.7.87) EOR15C, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that the employers were not vicariously liable for acts of sexual harassment committed by their employee where they did not know of the harassment, had a proper system of staff supervision, and had made known their policy of equal opportunities.

• expand

  Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc [1996] ET/28081/94 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc

    Date:

    31 December 1996

    In Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc [1996] ET/28081/94, an employment tribunal found that Miss Bamber had been sexually discriminated against in relation to promotion. The award of compensation included £20,000 aggravated damages.

• expand

  Barber v Churchill Catering Ltd [2004] ET/1501241/03 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 April 2004

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Barlow v Badrick t/a Cut and Dry Barbers Shop [2005] ET/1302167/05 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 May 2006

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Barry v Midland Bank plc [1995] IT/52983/93 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Severance payment terms did not discriminate

    Date:

    1 September 1995

    In Barry v Midland Bank plc a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: E R Donnelly) rules that a voluntary severance payment scheme, which failed to take account any full-time service a part-time worker may have had, was not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory because most women worked full-time rather than part-time.

• expand

  Barry v Midland Bank plc [1997] ICR 192 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: No indirect pay discrimination in voluntary severance scheme

    Date:

    1 May 1997

    In Barry v Midland Bank plc, the EAT holds that a woman bank employee was not indirectly discriminated against on the ground of her sex when the bank calculated her severance pay by reference to her part-time salary at the time of termination, notwithstanding that she had been employed full time for the first 11 years of her 13 years' service.

  • Contractual redundancy payment did not discriminate

    Date:

    1 March 1997

    In Barry v Midland Bank plc the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that a voluntary severance payment scheme, which failed to take into account any full-time service a part-time worker may have had, was not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory.

• expand

  Barry v Midland Bank plc [1998] IRLR 138 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: Calculation of part-timer's severance payment objectively justified

    Date:

    1 March 1998

    Calculating severance payments by reference to final pay, so that a part-timer who had previously worked full time did not have her full-time service reflected in her severance payment, was not proven to have a disproportionately adverse effect on women as compared with men but, if there was indirect discrimination, it was objectively justified, holds the Court of Appeal in Barry v Midland Bank plc.

  • Severance pay terms upheld

    Date:

    1 March 1998

    In Barry v Midland Bank plc the Court of Appeal has ruled that a redundancy pay scheme whereby severance pay is calculated on the basis of the employee's current pay at the date of termination does not contravene Article 119 of the EC Treaty even though it disadvantages part-time workers who previously worked full time by not taking into account any full-time service they may have had.

• expand

  Barry v Midland Bank plc [1999] IRLR 581 HL (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: Severance payment based on final salary not discriminatory

    Date:

    15 September 1999

    Calculating severance payments by reference to length of service and final pay, so that a part-time employee who had previously worked full time did not have her full-time service reflected in her severance payment, was not discriminatory, holds the House of Lords in Barry v Midland Bank plc.

  • Severance terms did not discriminate

    Date:

    1 September 1999

    In Barry v Midland Bank plc the House of Lords has ruled that a redundancy pay scheme whereby severance pay is calculated on the basis of the employee's current pay at the date of termination did not contravene Article 119 of the EC Treaty even though it disadvantages part-time workers who previously worked full-time by not taking into account any full-time service they may have had.

• expand

  Barthram v DFDS Transport Ltd [2002] ET/3203223/01 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest

    Date:

    1 July 2003

    Hilary Slater, consultant with Cobbetts solicitors, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 EAT (7 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay and sex discrimination: New guidance on burden of proof in sex discrimination claims

    Date:

    3 July 2003

    In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.

  • Case round-up

    Date:

    1 June 2003

    Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Guidance on burden of proof

    Date:

    1 June 2003

    In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (3 April 2003), the EAT sets out guidance on the correct approach to the burden of proof in equal pay and sex discrimination cases.

  • EAT slams City culture of pay secrecy

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Louise Barton has won her appeal against the employment tribunal's decision in her sex discrimination and equal pay case.

  • Equal value update

    Date:

    1 May 2003

    Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

  • Case round-up: transparency of incentive schemes and time limits for making discrimination claims

    Date:

    22 April 2003

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: transparency of incentive schemes; and time limits for making discrimination claims.

  • Burden of proof for pay equality shifts to firms

    Date:

    15 April 2003

    The EAT's shrewd ruling over a City bonus claim has wide implications for all employers fighting sex discrimination cases and serves as a warning over transparent pay scales. By Makbool Javid of DLA.