In Amnesty International v Ahmed  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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct discrimination.
XpertHR is part of the LexisNexis® Risk Solutions Group portfolio of brands.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group
© 2021 LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group.