-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on EHRC guidance on pregnancy and maternity during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Rakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, in which the EAT considered substantial disadvantage, and Q v L, which deals with knowledge of disability.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Walker v Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd and another, in which the EAT considered the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to offshore work.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, in which the EAT considered if an employer can be held liable for third-party harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Conisbee v Crossley Farms Ltd and others, in which the employment tribunal considered if vegetarianism is a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam and another, in which the EAT considered if a colleague's remark related to race.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, in which the EAT considered if an employer can be held liable for third-party harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Forbes v LHR Airport Ltd, in which the EAT considered if posting an offensive image on Facebook was done "in the course of employment".
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, in which the EAT considered if an employer can be held liable for third-party harassment under the Equality Act 2010.
-
- Date:
- 30 August 2018
- Type:
- Law reports
In Saad v Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the primary question, when deciding if an employee acted in bad faith, is whether or not the employee acted honestly in making the discrimination allegation, not the employee's ulterior purpose.
