All items: Direct discrimination

• expand

  (1) Dixon v Rees and (2) Hopkins v Shepherd & Partners [1993] IRLR 468 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Comparative approach endorsed

    Date:

    1 November 1993

    In (1) Dixon v Rees and (2) Hopkins v Shepherd & Partners (30 July 1993) EOR52C, the EAT rules that a comparison with how a man would be treated is necessary in pregnancy discrimination cases unless the case is one of dismissal for pregnancy "without more".

  • Comparative approach still applies

    Date:

    1 September 1993

    In (1) Dixon v Rees and (2) Hopkins v Shepherd & Partners the EAT has construed the House of Lords' decision in Webb v EMO Air Cargo as approving the test set out by the Court of Appeal requiring a comparison between the treatment of a pregnant woman and that of a man who also needed to be absent from work.

• expand

  A v B [1999] ET/2602005/97 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Male nurse discriminated against

    Date:

    1 December 1999

    In A v B a Nottingham employment tribunal (Chair: S Keevash) finds that a nursing home discriminated against a male nurse when it dismissed him because he carried out an internal vaginal examination of a patient, when no action would have been taken against female nurses who carried out intimate examinations of male patients.

• expand

  Abbey National plc v Formoso [1999] IRLR 222 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Hearing should not have gone ahead

    Date:

    1 June 1999

    In Abbey National plc v Formoso the EAT has upheld a finding that it was sex discrimination for an employer to hold a disciplinary hearing when the applicant was unable to defend herself due to her absence for a pregnancy-related reason.

  • Sex discrimination: Correct approach to assessing loss of earnings flowing from discriminatory dismissal

    Date:

    15 May 1999

    In Abbey National plc v Formoso, the EAT rejects an employment tribunal's "reasonable employer" approach to calculating the financial loss flowing from a discriminatory dismissal.

• expand

  ACAS v Taylor EAT/788/97 (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Sex discrimination: Unlawful positive discrimination by ACAS

    Date:

    1 June 1998

    In ACAS v Taylor, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that ACAS applied a policy of positive discrimination in favour of female employees applying for promotion to senior executive officer grade, and that a male applicant for promotion suffered unlawful sex discrimination as a result.

  • Positive discrimination finding upheld

    Date:

    1 June 1998

    In ACAS v Taylor the EAT has dismissed an appeal against an industrial tribunal's finding that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) unlawfully discriminated in favour of female employees in respect of promotion opportunities.

• expand

  Ahmed v Buckinghamshire County Council [1997] IT/2700198/97 (1 report relating to this case)

  • No GOQ defence for bias against male interpreter

    Date:

    1 June 1998

    In Ahmed v Buckinghamshire County Council, upholding a claim from a male interpreter that he had been discriminated against on grounds of sex, a Reading industrial tribunal (Chair: J G Hollow) rejects the council's genuine occupational qualification defence that its services to female members of the Asian community could be more effectively provided by female interpreters.

• expand

  Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd ET/1800990/2016 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Shared parental pay: Father denied fully paid leave to allow wife with post-natal depression to return to work

    Date:

    7 June 2017

    An employment tribunal has held that it was direct sex discrimination for a new father whose wife had post-natal depression to be allowed to take only two weeks' leave on full pay, when female staff were entitled to 14 weeks' enhanced maternity leave.

• expand

  Allen v Cannon Hygiene Ltd [1994] EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Sex discrimination: Tribunal should have considered effect of employer's action, not motivation

    Date:

    1 February 1995

    A female employee whose manager changed her work, ostensibly because it was "too much" for a woman to do on her own, suffered less favourable treatment on the ground of her sex even though the real reason for the manager's decision was dissatisfaction with the employee's work rather than any intention to discriminate. In Allen v Cannon Hygiene Ltd the EAT holds that the industrial tribunal wrongly focused on the employer's motivation and failed to consider the effect of its action, which was to deprive the employee of the chance to answer alleged complaints about her performance.

  • Objective rather than subjective test

    Date:

    1 December 1994

    Where an employee was told that a decision to transfer her was taken because she was a woman, the employers could not avoid a finding of sex discrimination by showing that the true reason for their decision was her unsatisfactory performance, rules the EAT in Allen v Cannon Hygiene Ltd.

• expand

  Andrews v (1) Oxleas NHS Trust (2) Mohoboob [2006] ET/2305176/05 & ET/2301426/06 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Case digest: sexual harassment

    Date:

    1 February 2007

    Tina McKevitt, lecturer in employment law at University of Sheffield, provides a round-up of employment tribunal decisions on discrimination.

• expand

  Anirah v Asda Stores Ltd [2000] ET/3200962/99 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Defence rejected

    Date:

    1 June 2001

    In Anirah v Asda Stores Ltd a Stratford employment tribunal (Chair: V K Gay) rejects an employer's defence that in creating and publishing an equality policy and training its staff, it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent one of its male managers from discriminating on the grounds of sex.

• expand

  Application by Badeck [2000] IRLR 432 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • ECJ backs positive discrimination

    Date:

    1 July 2000

    In Application by Badeck (28 March 2000) EOR92B, the European Court of Justice rules that a measure which gives priority in promotion to women, where they are equally qualified to men, in sectors where women are underrepresented is compatible with EU law if it does not automatically and unconditionally give priority to women, and the candidates are the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of their specific personal situations.

  • Sex discrimination: Positive action measures in favour of women were compatible with Community law

    Date:

    1 June 2000

    On an application by Georg Badeck and others, the European Court of Justice rules that provisions of German legislation - the aim of which was equal access of women and men to posts in the public service by the adoption of advancement plans for women with binding targets - were not precluded by the EC Equal Treatment Directive.