Sex discrimination

New and updated

• Date:

  1 April 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  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:

  Employment law cases

  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:

  28 January 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Victimisation by sending letters warning of effect of claims

  In St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire and others, the EAT holds that the tribunal did not err in law in finding that the council had victimised catering staff who had presented equal pay claims.

• Date:

  12 November 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discrimination: Approach to be taken to harassment complaints

  In Scott v Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal erred in awarding only £15,000 in respect of the psychiatric injury caused to an employee by the way in which his employer dealt with allegations of sexual harassment made against him by a work colleague.

• Type:

  FAQs

  Is an employer acting unlawfully if it tells a third party such as an employment agency that it would prefer to appoint a man for the job?

• Date:

  1 June 2004

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson

  In Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a workplace dress code that requires men to wear a collar and tie and women to dress appropriately to a similar standard may not be discriminatory on the grounds of sex.

• Date:

  1 December 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Steinicke v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit

  In Steinicke v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit [2003] IRLR 892 ECJ, the European Court of Justice held that a German public sector scheme for part-time working for older employees that was dependent on previous full-time service could infringe EC law if indirectly discriminatory against women, unless justification was shown.

• Date:

  7 October 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up: mobility clauses and "protected" whistleblowing disclosures

  This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: mobility clauses and "protected" whistleblowing disclosures.

• Date:

  5 September 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Equal pay/sex discrimination: Indirect discrimination burden of proof lies on employee

  In Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the burden of proof in indirect sex discrimination cases should be approached in the same way irrespective of whether a case is brought under Article 141 (previously 119) of the EC Treaty of Rome, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equal Pay Act 1970.

• Date:

  15 August 2003

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discrimination: Employers liable for post-termination discrimination

  In Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper and related cases the House of Lords interprets anti-discrimination legislation to mean that employees should be protected against certain acts of post-termination discrimination by their employer.