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.
This week's case roundup from Eversheds, covering sex discrimination and ballots for strike action.
In Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health (6 December 2001), the Court of Appeal rules that where there is no actual comparator for a discrimination complainant to compare their treatment with, the tribunal must construct a hypothetical comparator.
An employment tribunal failed to meet the minimum requirements for a reasoned decision in finding that an employer had unlawfully discriminated against two employees on racial grounds, holds the EAT in Cromwell Hospital v Francis and another.
In Qureshi v (1) Victoria University of Manchester (2) Brazier, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal wrongly adopted a "piecemeal approach" in determining whether the less favourable treatment complained of by an employee against his employer and his boss was on the ground of his race.
In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (14 June 1990) EOR33B, the House of Lords holds that the test for determining whether there has been direct discrimination is "would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?". It is not necessary for complainants to prove in addition that the subjective reason they were treated less favourably was because of their gender.
In a sex discrimination case the crucial question is whether the complainant would have received the same treatment but for his or her sex.
In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (26.4.89) EOR26A, the Court of Appeal holds that a policy of not charging those over state pension age admission to a swimming pool did not treat a man aged 61 less favourably on grounds of his sex.
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.