Equality, diversity and human rights
In Power v Panasonic UK Ltd the EAT holds that In deciding whether a complainant has a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an employment tribunal should consider whether the disability alleged is one that falls within the meaning of the Act, or whether it is in fact an impairment which is excluded by reason of Regulations issued under the Act from being treated as such a disability.
In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the House of Lords holds that in cases where a complainant alleges direct sex discrimination, the statutory comparison requires that all the circumstances that are relevant to the way the complainant was treated are the same as, or not materially different from, the circumstances of the comparator.
In Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2), the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal was entitled to award £165,000 for future loss of earnings to a probationer police constable who suffered sex discrimination, culminating in her dismissal at the age of 30, two years after her appointment.
In Hendricks v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal did not err in law in deciding that it had jurisdiction to hear a police officer's race and sex discrimination complaints, notwithstanding that none of the numerous alleged incidents of discriminatory treatment complained of occurred in the three-month period preceding the presentation of her originating application.
In Hardman v Mallon, t/a Orchard Lodge Nursing Home, the EAT holds that a failure to carry out a risk assessment in respect of a pregnant employee as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 amounts to unlawful sex discrimination. This is because carrying out a risk assessment is one of the ways in which a woman's biological condition during and after pregnancy is given special protection.
The fact that an employee was facing disciplinary proceedings which could have, and in fact did, result in her dismissal did not justify an employer's failure to make a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, holds the EAT in HM Prison Service v Beart.
Article 141 of the EC Treaty of Rome is not limited to situations where men and women work for the same employer, but it does not cover the situation where pay differences between equal pay claimants and their comparators cannot be attributed to a single source, so that there is no single body responsible for the inequality and which can restore equal treatment, the European Court of Justice holds in Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others.
An employee on long-term sick leave who failed to maintain communication with his employer regarding his continued absence, and who had not provided continuous medical certificates, was lawfully dismissed so as to terminate any entitlement to benefits under the employer's permanent health insurance scheme, the Court of Appeal holds in Briscoe v Lubrizol Ltd.
In Smith v Reliance Secure Task Management Ltd t/a Reliance Monitoring Services [2002] ET/1400993/02, an employment tribunal found that the job of tagging offenders did not need to be held by a woman to preserve decency or privacy of female offenders, so there was no genuine occupational qualification defence to a claim of sex discrimination.
In Wilding v British Telecommunications plc, the Court of Appeal upholds a decision by an employment tribunal that, by refusing an offer of part-time re-employment, an employee who had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the ground of his disability had thereby failed to mitigate his loss.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.