Equality, diversity and human rights
In Keane v Investigo and others EAT/0389/09, the EAT held that an experienced accountant who applied for jobs aimed at recently qualified accountants that she did not genuinely want was unable to complain of having suffered any disadvantage when she was not put forward for them.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where a claimant is alleging that separate incidents form one continuous act for the purposes of extending the normal time limit within which to bring a claim for racial discrimination, a relevant but not conclusive factor is whether the same individuals or different individuals were involved in the separate incidents.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that employees, who successfully claim discrimination, are entitled to be compensated for any injury to health or injury to feelings caused by the act complained of, even if they were unaware that the act complained of was discriminatory.
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.
In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was.
The High Court has awarded damages for injury and distress under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Susannah Jarvis (associate) and Kate Williams (professional support lawyer), Addleshaw Goddard, analyse important recent rulings.
A recent appeal judgment clarifies when an employer should assess the risks for a pregnant worker, reports Howard Fidderman
In Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a registrar with strong Christian beliefs about marriage who was threatened with dismissal for refusing to carry out civil partnership work did not suffer unlawful religious discrimination.
In Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employment tribunals should ask a Polkey-type question when considering loss of earnings flowing from a discriminatory dismissal. The Court also ruled that, in appropriate cases, compensation for loss of earnings may include an element of "stigma" loss.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.