Equality, diversity and human rights
In Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] IRLR 317 ECJ, the European Court of Justice held that the exclusion of part-time workers from occupational pension schemes contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome if this exclusion affects significantly more women than men, unless the employer can show that the exclusion is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (26.2.86) EOR7E, the European Court of Justice rules that compulsory retirement of men and women at different ages contravenes the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.
The Court of Appeal in R v Commission for Racial Equality (ex parte Westminster City Council) upholds the High Court's finding that employers are guilty of discriminatory conduct if they give into workforce pressure which is itself based on discrimination.
In The Home Office v Holmes, the EAT holds that a ban on part-time work can amount to unlawful sex discrimination.
In upholding a Sikh's complaint of indirect discrimination under the education provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, the House of Lords in Mandla and another v Lee and others adopts a broad interpretation of the definition of ethnic origins.
In Ahmad v UK [1982] 4 EHRR 126 ECHR, the European Commission of Human Rights held that a local authority's refusal to allow Mr Ahmad time off work on Fridays to attend prayers at a mosque did not infringe his freedom of religion or his right to enjoy rights and freedoms without discrimination.
In Owen & Briggs v James [1982] IRLR 502 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Tribunal and the EAT had not erred in concluding that the appellants had acted in breach of the Race Relations Act by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer the respondent employment in that they had, on racial grounds, treated her less favourably than they had treated or would have treated other persons.
In Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd) [1982] IRLR 281 EAT, the EAT held that the employer's conscious motive for taking a particular course of action, whilst it may be relevant, is not the decisive factor when considering whether racial discrimination has taken place.
In Kingston & Richmond Area Health Authority v Kaur, the EAT has ruled that a requirement by a health authority that enrolled nurses wear a standard uniform which could not be varied is "justifiable" within the meaning of s.1(1)(b)(ii) of the Race Relations Act and that in applying such a requirement to a Sikh woman, whose religion requires her to wear trousers, the employers had not unlawfully indirectly discriminated against her.
In Page v Freight Hire (Tank Haulage) Ltd [1981] IRLR 13 EAT, the EAT held that the employer was protected by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 51(1) because refusing to allow the employee to transport dimethyl formamide was necessary to comply with the employer's duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was not an act of excessive caution.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.