Topics

Victimisation

New and updated

  • Conscious motive necessary

    Date:
    1 March 1998
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Asian worker victimised for complaining about lay-off

    Date:
    1 September 1997
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Fire authority liable for Asian victimisation

    Date:
    1 September 1997
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Victimised for refusing support in sex bias claim

    Date:
    1 June 1997
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Lecturer victimised for bringing race claim

    Date:
    1 September 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Unsuccessful applicant not given feedback was victimised

    Date:
    1 September 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Victimised for accusing MD of being a racist

    Date:
    1 March 1995
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Discrimination: Victimisation provisions interpreted narrowly

    Date:
    5 May 1988
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Victimisation turns on motive of alleged discriminator

    Date:
    1 May 1988
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd and others (26.2.88) EOR19B, the Court of Appeal rules that in order to show unlawful victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA), the complainant must establish a causal link showing that the fact that the act protected under s.2 was done under or by reference to the RRA consciously influenced the alleged discriminator in treating him less favourably.

  • Victimisation protection again restrictively interpreted

    Date:
    1 May 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Cornelius v University College of Swansea (10.2.87) EOR13D, the Court of Appeal holds that a complainant under s.4 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) must not only show that she was victimised because she brought proceedings against her employer, but she must also show that the basis for the victimisation was that those proceedings were brought under the SDA.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to victimisation.