-
- Date:
- 11 May 2009
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that it was reasonable for a female employee of Indian ethnic origin to be offended by what she perceived to be a stereotypical reference to the possibility of her being "married off in India". This violated her dignity and amounted to unlawful racial harassment.
-
- Date:
- 2 December 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Chagger v Abbey National plc and another EAT/0606/07, the EAT held that a claim of discrimination on grounds of skin colour inevitably involves a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, thus engaging s.54A of the Race Relations Act 1976. In addition, allowing an appeal against an award of around £2.8 million compensation, the EAT held that the tribunal should have considered a Polkey-type question in relation to loss of earnings, and that recoverable loss should be limited to that flowing from loss of employment with the discriminator.
-
- Date:
- 11 August 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Bayode v The Chief Constable of Derbyshire EAT/0499/07, the EAT held that, where alleged less favourable treatment consisted of accurate written records made by colleagues in their personal notebooks about aspects of a black police officer's behaviour that were of concern to them, the employment tribunal was entitled to find on the facts that the officer had no justified sense of grievance about the making of the entries and therefore had not suffered any detriment.
-
- Date:
- 17 July 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The European Court of Justice has held that an employer's public statement of a discriminatory recruitment policy is direct discrimination contrary to the Race Directive (2000/43/EC).
-
- Date:
- 10 July 2008
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee who was dismissed when he brought tribunal proceedings in order to harass his employer, rather than to receive compensation, was not protected by the victimisation provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.
-
- Date:
- 23 October 2006
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Brunel University and another v Vaseghi and another EAT/0307/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the need to get to the truth in discrimination cases can override the rule that prevents settlement discussions between parties' representatives from being admissible as evidence.
-
- Date:
- 21 July 2006
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Serco Ltd v Redfearn [2006] EWCA Civ 659 CA, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer did not discriminate on grounds of race when it dismissed an employee because of fears that his membership of the BNP would lead to hostility, jeopardising the health and safety of staff and customers.
-
- Date:
- 1 November 2005
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Joe Glavina and Emma Slark at 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:
- Employment law cases
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:
- Employment law cases
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.