Equality, diversity and human rights >
Direct discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that a limited company can bring a claim of direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
In Lockwood v Department for Work and Pensions and another [2013] IRLR 941 CA, the Court of Appeal held that less favourable treatment of a younger employee under the employer's redundancy scheme was objectively justified.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that age-related differences between the claimant and his or her comparator should not be taken into account when deciding whether or not the claimant suffered less favourable treatment because of his or her age.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers the burden of proof in discrimination cases.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in ascertaining whether or not words that reference a protected characteristic constitute unlawful discrimination, the conduct complained of must be seen in context.
Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.
In a hearing of three conjoined appeals (Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors and another v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, 18 February 2005), the Court of Appeal considers the guidelines established in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (EOR 118) and sets out revised guidance on the burden of proof provisions in the discrimination legislation.
In Igen Ltd & ors v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors & ors v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, the Court of Appeal holds that the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976, in order to implement the Burden of Proof Directive (97/80/EC), require a two-stage process to determine direct discrimination.
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 James v Eastleigh Borough Council (14 June 1990) EOR33B, the House of Lords holds that the test for determining whether there has been direct discrimination is "would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?". It is not necessary for complainants to prove in addition that the subjective reason they were treated less favourably was because of their gender.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct discrimination.