Victimisation

New and updated

• Religion or belief discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Gan Menachem Hendon Ltd v De Groen, in which the EAT considered if a Jewish employee's dismissal for "cohabitation" amounted to religious discrimination.

• Pregnancy and maternity discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on the launch of the Government's consultation on extending redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents.

• Age discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice v McCloud, in which the Court of Appeal considered whether or not transitional provisions for judges' and firefighters' pensions were justified.

• Disability discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Asda Stores Ltd v Raymond, in which the EAT held that the employee's dismissal for urinating in a loading yard was something arising from disability.

• Race discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, in which the Court of Appeal held that Uber drivers are workers.

• Sex discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, in which the Court of Appeal held that Uber drivers are workers.

• "Fat ginger pikey" and Yoda comments were not harassment, finds EAT

  Date:

  24 October 2018

  Type:

  News

  A salesman who was called a "fat ginger pikey" by work colleagues has lost his claim for disability discrimination and victimisation at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

• Marriage and civil partnership discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, in which the Court of Appeal held that Uber drivers are workers.

• Victimisation: Focus of test for bad faith is honesty, not motivation

  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.

• Gender reassignment discrimination

  Type:

  Employment law manual

  Updated to include information on Uber BV and others v Aslam and others, in which the Court of Appeal held that Uber drivers are workers.