Topics

Direct discrimination

New and updated

  • Type:
    FAQs

    When can an individual bring a claim for direct race discrimination?

  • Date:
    28 October 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Race discrimination: Motive does not equate with "grounds"

    In Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] IRLR 884 EAT, the EAT held that, where an employer's refusal to promote an employee was essentially because of her national/ethnic origin, the employer's benign motive for its conduct was irrelevant. Nagarajan v London Regional Transport did not establish a requirement to enquire as to the employer's reasons for racially based less favourable treatment.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    Can an employer defend a direct discrimination claim on the basis that any discrimination was unintentional?

  • Date:
    12 August 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Discrimination: EAT gives guidance on direct discrimination claims

    In Adebayo v Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Ltd, the EAT holds that the way in which a direct discrimination claim must be decided by a tribunal has changed significantly, following a recent amendment to the anti-discrimination laws.

  • Date:
    1 May 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case round up

    Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.

  • Date:
    1 April 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Burden of proof guidelines revised

    In a hearing of three conjoined appeals (Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors and another v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, 18 February 2005), the Court of Appeal considers the guidelines established in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (EOR 118) and sets out revised guidance on the burden of proof provisions in the discrimination legislation.

  • Date:
    25 March 2005
    Type:
    Law reports

    Discrimination: Burden of proof finally reversed in direct discrimination claims

    In Igen Ltd & ors v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors & ors v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, the Court of Appeal holds that the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976, in order to implement the Burden of Proof Directive (97/80/EC), require a two-stage process to determine direct discrimination.

  • Date:
    1 July 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Lords set the standard for sex discrimination claims

    Claimants for sexual discrimination must have an appropriate actual or hypothetical comparator to back up their case. Otherwise, the claim will prove unsuccessful. By Jill Kelly, Associate, Clarks.

  • Date:
    9 May 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Sex discrimination: The comparison exercise in direct sex discrimination claims

    In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the House of Lords holds that in cases where a complainant alleges direct sex discrimination, the statutory comparison requires that all the circumstances that are relevant to the way the complainant was treated are the same as, or not materially different from, the circumstances of the comparator.

  • Date:
    1 May 2003
    Type:
    Law reports

    Guidance on proving discrimination

    In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (27 February 2003), the House of Lords holds that an employee is subjected to a "detriment" for the purposes of discrimination law if a reasonable employee might feel they have been placed at a disadvantage with regard to the circumstances in which they work.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct discrimination.