Latest case reports added to HR & Compliance Centre

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

  • Employment status: Agency worker was not protected from discrimination by end user In Muschett v HM Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an agency worker had neither a contract of employment nor a contract with the end user personally to carry out work. Accordingly, he could not bring complaints of unfair or wrongful dismissal, or of unlawful discrimination, against the end user. (Employment Review)
  • Age discrimination: Maximum age limit of 30 for recruitment as a firefighter does not breach Community age discrimination law In Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt Am Main [2010] IRLR 244 ECJ, the ECJ held that the German Government's restriction on recruitment as a firefighter to those aged 30 or under does not give rise to age discrimination because it constitutes a proportionate "genuine and determining occupational requirement" in pursuit of a legitimate aim, within the meaning of art.4(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.  (Employment Review)
  • Annual leave: Holiday entitlement can be subject to notice requirements In Lyons v Mitie Security Ltd EAT/0081/09, the EAT held that, in principle, the ability to take annual leave is not inalienable and can be lost if the worker does not comply with the notice requirements imposed by the Working Time Regulations 1998 and/or the worker's contract. However, the tribunal had erred in failing to analyse properly whether or not the particular notice requirements of the claimant's contract had been complied with, before deciding to dismiss his constructive dismissal and holiday pay claims. (Employment Review)

  • Failure to understand medical evidence In City of Edinburgh Council v Dickson EATS/0038/09, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal decision that an employee was unfairly dismissed for viewing pornography at work during a "hypoglycaemic episode" brought on by diabetes when he behaved wholly out of character and after which he had no recollection of what he had done. However, it overturned the tribunal decision that the dismissal amounted to disability discrimination. (Personnel Today)

Also

Week beginning 15 March 2010
Week beginning 08 March 2010
Week beginning 01 March 2010
Week beginning 22 February 2010
Week beginning 15 February 2010
Week beginning 8 February 2010
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