Employment law cases

All items: Indirect discrimination

  • Equal pay/sex discrimination: Indirect discrimination burden of proof lies on employee

    Date:
    5 September 2003

    In Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the burden of proof in indirect sex discrimination cases should be approached in the same way irrespective of whether a case is brought under Article 141 (previously 119) of the EC Treaty of Rome, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equal Pay Act 1970.

  • Race discrimination: "Intentional" indirect discrimination by employer

    Date:
    1 April 1996

    In JH Walker Ltd v Hussain and others the EAT holds that an employer "intentionally" indirectly discriminated against its Asian employees on the ground of race when, in accordance with a new policy that no holiday could be taken by employees during the three busiest months of the year, it required them to work on an important Muslim festival day, and disciplined them when they took the day off.

  • Severance payment terms did not discriminate

    Date:
    1 September 1995

    In Barry v Midland Bank plc a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: E R Donnelly) rules that a voluntary severance payment scheme, which failed to take account any full-time service a part-time worker may have had, was not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory because most women worked full-time rather than part-time.

  • Full-time return only

    Date:
    1 June 1995

    A jobsharer who was only permitted to return to work after maternity leave on a full-time basis was unlawfully discriminated against, rules a Glasgow industrial tribunal (Chair: S F R Patrick) in Watt v Ballantyne & Copeland.

  • Buy-out not offered to staff on career break

    Date:
    1 June 1995

    In Overton v Nuclear Electric plc a Bristol industrial tribunal (Chair: C G Toomer) finds that there was no indirect discrimination in an employer's failure to offer a payment for accepting new terms and conditions to employees on career breaks.

  • Determining whether indirect discrimination is intentional

    Date:
    1 June 1995

    In London Underground Ltd v Edwards the EAT has held that in determining whether an indirectly discriminatory requirement or condition was applied with the intention to treat a woman less favourably on grounds of sex, so as to permit an award of compensation, intention can be inferred from an employer's knowledge of the unfavourable consequences for the claimant as a woman.

  • Rostering scheme discriminated

    Date:
    1 December 1994

    In Edwards v London Underground Ltd a London North industrial tribunal (Chair: R Upex) rules that new rostering arrangements introduced as part of a £10 million cost-saving plan indirectly discriminated against a female train operator, who was a single parent.

  • Compensation for unintentional indirect discrimination

    Date:
    1 September 1994

    Compensation for unintentional indirect sex discrimination is payable under the Equal Treatment Directive, rules a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: E R Donnelly) in Tickle v Governors of Riverview CF School and Surrey County Council.

  • Impact test to ECJ

    Date:
    1 September 1994

    The European Court of Justice has been asked by an Ashford industrial tribunal (Chair: G W Davis) in Rudling v PSA Services and another to rule on the proper test to be applied under EC law in order to determine whether a practice has a disparate impact upon women.

  • Discrimination: Test for justifying indirect discrimination

    Date:
    7 March 1989

    In Hampson v Department of Education and Science, the Court of Appeal rules that the exemption in s.41 of the Race Relations Act 1976 for acts done in pursuance of statutory authority does not extend to all acts done under a statute or statutory instrument.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect discrimination.