Topics

Sex discrimination

New and updated

  • Date:
    15 October 1998
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Ex-employees must have legal remedy against victimisation

    The EC Equal Treatment Directive requires member states to provide judicial protection for those whose former employers react to their bringing claims of sex discrimination against them during their employment by refusing their requests for a reference, rules the European Court of Justice in Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd.

  • Date:
    1 July 1998
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Meaning of "considerably smaller" proportion

    In London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2), the Court of Appeal holds that a female train driver who was unable to comply with new rostering arrangements imposed by her employer was indirectly discriminated against on the ground of her sex.

  • Date:
    1 June 1998
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Employer liability for work-related social function

    In Stubbs v Chief Constable Lincolnshire Police and others a Nottingham industrial tribunal (Chair: D R Sneath) holds Lincolnshire's chief constable liable for the unlawful acts of a male police officer who sexually harassed a female colleague in public houses after work.

  • Date:
    15 October 1997
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: "Requirement or condition" need not be absolute bar

    A "requirement or condition" applied by an employer does not have to constitute an absolute bar in order for it to be challenged as amounting to indirect sex discrimination, holds the EAT in Falkirk Council and others v Whyte and others.

  • Date:
    1 May 1997
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Qualifying period to ECJ

    In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (13 March 1997) EOR73A, the House of Lords refers questions to the European Court of Justice relating to whether the increase in the qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal from one to two years indirectly discriminated against women contrary to European Community law.

  • Date:
    15 April 1997
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Comparing proportionate impact of "requirement or condition"

    An industrial tribunal was entitled to conclude that the proportion of female train operators who could comply with a new roster (95.2%) was "considerably smaller" than the proportion of male train operators who could do so (100%), holds the EAT in London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2).

  • Date:
    31 December 1996
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc

    In Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc [1996] ET/28081/94, an employment tribunal found that Miss Bamber had been sexually discriminated against in relation to promotion. The award of compensation included £20,000 aggravated damages.

  • Date:
    1 September 1996
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory

    In Smith v Safeway plc (16 February 1996) EOR69A, the Court of Appeal holds that an appearance code which applies a standard of what is conventional applies an even-handed approach between men and women, and not one which is sex discriminatory.

  • Date:
    1 July 1996
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: Men's hair-length restriction not discriminatory

    In Smith v Safeway plc, the Court of Appeal holds that an industrial tribunal was entitled to decide that an employer's appearance code which required male employees' hair not to be below collar-length was not discriminatory.

  • Date:
    1 November 1995
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    No liability for victimisation

    In Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (14 February 1995) EOR64B, the EAT rules that an employer could not be not liable for victimising an employee who alleged that she was sexually harassed by a work colleague, where the alleged harassment was not committed in the course of employment.