Equality, diversity and human rights
In St Andrews Catholic Primary School and others v Blundell EAT/0330/09, the EAT held that the appropriate award of compensation for injury to a victimised employee's feelings was £14,000, not £22,000, reflecting that it was a serious case falling within the middle Vento band. The tribunal's award of £5,000 in aggravated damages was, however, appropriate.
Ceri Hughes, David Parry, and Carly Mather, associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
In Johal v Equality and Human Rights Commission EAT/0541/09, the EAT held that the employer's failure to inform an employee on maternity leave of a job vacancy was not an act of sex discrimination.
In Manchester College v Cocliff EAT/0035/10, the EAT held that an employment tribunal erred when it decided that there had been less favourable treatment on grounds of fixed-term status because it had found that any difference in terms was not objectively justifiable. Tribunals should first consider whether or not any less favourable treatment is on grounds of fixed-term status. Only if the answer is yes should they move on to consider the defence of objective justification.
This case is a good example of an employer committing disability discrimination by failing to make a simple adjustment for a disabled employee.
In Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie EAT/0024/10, the EAT held that a contractual redundancy scheme that capped payments at the total amount of earnings that the employee would have received prior to retirement was justified as a proportionate means of preventing redundant employees from receiving a windfall.
Annabel Mackay, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers sex and pregnancy discrimination and constructive dismissal.
In J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] IRLR 936 EAT, the EAT held that, in considering whether or not the employee was disabled, the tribunal was wrong to exclude the evidence of a GP as being "not expert". In remitting the case to the tribunal, it emphasised that there is a difference between "despondency, demotivation and anxiety" caused by problems at work and "clinical depression".
This case demonstrates how a one-off office joke can result in liability for discrimination.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.