Latest case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre

We provide a round-up of case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre this week, covering: age discrimination; employment status; disability discrimination; and pregnancy-related discrimination. 

  • Age discrimination: Continuation of past age discrimination in form of transitional pay protection capable of justification In Pulham and others v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham EAT/0516/08, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that it is open to an employer to seek to justify the adoption of discriminatory pay protection arrangements following the abolition of a discriminatory incremental pay scheme. However, in this case, the tribunal's decision to the effect that the employer was justified on the facts could not be upheld, because its approach to the assessment of justification was legally flawed. (Employment Review)
  • Employment status: Express contractual terms specifying self-employment did not reflect terms agreed In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2010] IRLR 70 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a group of car valeters were employees, despite the fact that their written contracts with the valeting company stated that they were independent contractors, and contained clauses allowing "substitution of labour" and the "right to refuse work". (Employment Review)
  • Disability discrimination: Employer came within provisions of s.4A(3) of the DDA so no duty to make reasonable adjustments was imposed In Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions v Alam EAT/0242/09, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in finding that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments where it gave an employee with a depressive condition a warning for leaving work early without permission. (Employment Review)
  • Risk assessments for pregnant employees In O'Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council EAT/0020/09, the EAT has upheld an employment tribunal finding that the employer had not failed to carry out a risk assessment on the basis that the requirement to carry out an assessment did not apply to the employee's work. There is no general obligation to carry out a risk assessment on pregnant employees so that a failure to do so amounts to discrimination per se. The obligation to carry out a risk assessment is triggered only in certain circumstances. (Personnel Today)

Also

Week beginning 1 February 2010
Week beginning 25 January 2010
Week beginning 18 January 2010
Week beginning 11 January 2010
Week beginning 14 December 2009
Week beginning 7 December 2009
Week beginning 30 November 2009
Week beginning 23 November 2009
Week beginning 16 November 2009
Week beginning 9 November 2009
Week beginning 2 November 2009
Week beginning 26 October 2009
Week beginning 19 October 2009
Week beginning 12 October 2009
Week beginning 5 October 2009
Week beginning 28 September 2009
Week beginning 21 September 2009
Week beginning 7 September 2009
Week beginning 24 August 2009
Week beginning 10 August 2009
Week beginning 27 July 2009
Week beginning 20 July 2009
Week beginning 13 July 2009
Week beginning 6 July 2009
Archive: January to June 2009
Archive: July to December 2008
Archive: January to June 2008
Archive: July to December 2007
Archive: January to June 2007
Archive: July to December 2006