Topics

Selecting staff

New and updated

  • Date:
    1 June 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    EO training recommended

    An action recommendation under s. 65(1)(c) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that "all members of the respondents' management should receive training in equal opportunities within the next six months" is made by a Bury St Edmunds industrial tribunal (Chair: W B Carruthers) in Vearer and others v BPCC Magazines Colchester Ltd.

  • Date:
    1 June 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    Lack of formal procedures led to sex bias

    An employer unlawfully discriminated in the way it offered a female supervisor access to opportunities for promotion when it failed to take account of the relevance of differing career experiences and offered a male supervisor a new management post but failed to inform the female supervisor of the vacancy and give her the opportunity of applying, holds a Leeds industrial tribunal (Chair: E H J Record) in Schofield v Double Two Ltd.

  • Date:
    1 March 1993
    Type:
    Law reports

    Pool cannot be subdivided

    In Jones v University of Manchester (21 December 1992) EOR48A, the Court of Appeal rules that the correct pool for comparison in an indirect discrimination case is those persons who satisfy all the relevant criteria apart from the requirement being challenged as indirectly discriminatory.

  • Date:
    1 January 1992
    Type:
    Law reports

    Standard of proof restated

    In King v The Great Britain-China Centre (11 October 1991) EOR41B, the Court of Appeal holds that it is "legitimate" for a tribunal to infer that discrimination was on racial grounds where the employer's explanation is inadequate or unsatisfactory.

  • Date:
    1 July 1991
    Type:
    Law reports

    Incompetence is not discrimination

    In Qureshi v London Borough of Newham (6 March 1991) EOR38F, the Court of Appeal rules that an inference of discrimination cannot be drawn merely on the basis of a failure to apply an equal opportunities policy.

  • Date:
    1 March 1991
    Type:
    Law reports

    Nationality discrimination protection limited

    In Dhatt v McDonalds Hamburgers Ltd (8 November 1990) EOR36C, the Court of Appeal holds that the employers did not discriminate against an Indian national on grounds of nationality by requiring him to produce evidence of his right to work in the UK, even though they did not make a similar request to British and EEC citizens.

  • Date:
    1 March 1991
    Type:
    Law reports

    Guidance on proving discrimination

    In British Gas plc v Sharma (18 July 1990) EOR36D, the EAT holds that a complaint must fail if the tribunal finds itself in a state of doubt either because the evidence of the employer has thrown doubt upon the primary facts upon which the appellant's case rests or because the employer has adduced an explanation upon those primary facts which throws doubt upon the true and proper inferences to be drawn.

  • Date:
    1 September 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    Burden on employer to rebut statistical evidence

    In Greater Manchester Police Authority v Lea (26 April 1990) EOR33C, the EAT holds that statistical perfection is not required to establish disparate impact in an indirect discrimination case. An employer disputing the complainant's statistics can put in its own rebuttal evidence.

  • Date:
    1 May 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    Prima facie case shifts evidential burden to employer

    In Dornan v Belfast City Council (9 March 1990) EOR31A, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal holds that where a prima facie case of discrimination has been shown, the evidential burden shifts to the employer to disprove such discrimination by providing a clear and specific explanation to the satisfaction of the tribunal.

  • Date:
    1 May 1990
    Type:
    Law reports

    Drawing inferences of discrimination

    In Baker v Cornwall County Council (28 March 1990) EOR31B, the Court of Appeal rules that if discrimination takes place in circumstances which are consistent with the treatment being based on grounds of sex or race, the industrial tribunal should be prepared to draw the inference that the discrimination was on such grounds unless the alleged discriminator can satisfy the tribunal that there was some other innocent explanation.