Equality, diversity and human rights
In Zaiwalla & Co and another v Walia the EAT holds that an employment tribunal which upheld an employee's complaint of sex discrimination was entitled to award aggravated damages of £7,500 to reflect the fact that the employer conducted its defence of the tribunal proceedings in a manner deliberately designed to be intimidatory and threatening, and to cause the maximum distress to the employee.
This month's case round up in brief.
In Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee can be made personally liable for acts of unlawful discrimination committed by him or her in the course of his or her employment against a fellow employee, even though the employer is held not to be legally liable for its conduct because it took reasonably practicable steps to prevent its employee from doing the act in question.
In Goodwin v United Kingdom (11 July 2002), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rules that the lack of recognition in the UK of a transsexual's new gender identity for legal purposes is a breach both of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (respect for private life) and article 12 (right to marry).
In Wilson and others v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights holds that, whereas the absence under UK domestic law of compulsory collective bargaining did not, in itself, give rise to a violation of article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, preventing employees from exercising their right to have their trade union protect their interests rendered that right illusory.
Disciplinary proceedings taken by the Securities and Futures Authority against a securities trader involved the "determination of his civil rights and obligations", but not the determination of "any criminal charge" within the meaning of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, even though the proceedings could result in fines and a suspension, holds the Court of Appeal in R v Securities and Futures Authority Ltd and another ex parte Fleurose.
In Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal should have constructed a hypothetical comparator against which to consider whether there was evidence to support an inference that the complainant's treatment had been tainted with race discrimination. And the EAT holds in Williams v H M Prison Service that there is no additional duty on a tribunal to construct and consider the position of a hypothetical comparator.
This week's case roundup from Eversheds, covering company car policy and sex discrimination.
The Court of Appeal in Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth holds that there is no general principle that it will be just and equitable to extend time for bringing a tribunal claim where the applicant is using the employer's internal grievance procedure.
In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Morgan (6 February 2002), the EAT criticises an employment tribunal for finding that there was "institutionalised" racism in the Revenue's solicitors' department.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.