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.
The concept of victimisation under the Race Relations Act requires the discriminator to have a motive which is consciously connected with that legislation, confirms the Court of Appeal in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport.
In Nagarajan v Swiggs and London Regional Transport the Court of Appeal has ruled that in order for there to be unlawful victimisation, the discriminator must have been consciously motivated to treat the employee unfavourably because of the protected act.
An Asian worker who received a written warning after complaining that the way in which the company selected its employees for lay-off was potentially racially discriminatory, was unlawfully victimised against, rules a Leeds industrial tribunal (Chair: C T Grazin) in Sarai v (1) Calhoun and Kennaugh and (2) Calhoun Holdings Ltd.
In Mann v (1) Gloucestershire County Council Fire & Rescue Services and (2) Gibb a Bristol industrial tribunal (Chair: C G Toomer) rules that a fire authority was liable for the unlawful victimisation of an Asian firefighter who complained that a station officer had made racially derogatory remarks and who was ostracised by his colleagues after the officer's suspension was lifted.
A secretary in a firm of solicitors who was reduced almost to the state of "a gibbering idiot" by a two and a half hour meeting with the firm's senior partner after she refused to support him in a discrimination claim brought by a dismissed pregnant employee was unlawfully victimised, rules a Newcastle-upon-Tyne industrial tribunal (Chair: J D Myers) in Bell v Tocher Neal & Co.
A university lecturer was unlawfully victimised for bringing race discrimination proceedings against his employer when his application for promotion was unfairly considered and when he was placed last on a list of people entitled to performance-related pay so that he stood little or no chance of receiving such pay, rules a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: G H K Meeran) in Majid v London Guildhall University.
An employee who had made a race discrimination complaint was later unlawfully victimised when he was not, in accordance with normal practice, informed why his application for promotion had been unsuccessful, rules a Manchester industrial tribunal (Chair: C T Grazin) in Shah v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council.
A black employee was unlawfully victimised when he was barred from his company's bonus scheme after he accused his managing director of being a racist, rules a London (North) industrial tribunal (Chair: P R K Menon) in Leacock v Zeller & Sons plc.
Past case law has made it difficult for complainants to establish victimisation because tribunals have compared the treatment of a person who has done an act protected by s.2 to that of a person who has done a similar but unprotected act. But in Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd and others the Court of Appeal holds that the correct comparison is between those who have done a protected act and those who have not.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to victimisation.