Equality, diversity and human rights >
Race discrimination
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 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.
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.
In Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court of Appeal holds that where an appointment is made from a close circle of family or friends, this will rarely constitute indirect discrimination as the vast majority of the relevant pool of potential candidates will be excluded. It will therefore not be possible to show that the requirement of personal knowledge has the disproportionate impact necessary to found a discrimination claim.
In Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] EWCA Civ 2005 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was wrong to infer knowledge of a protected act on the part of three councillors who had decided not to offer a job to the claimant, and therefore to find victimisation, since knowledge on the part of the alleged discriminator of the protected act is a pre-condition to a finding of victimisation.
The Court of Appeal holds that when an employer continued an investigation into the activities of a black female employee for longer than an ordinary investigation would have taken, for reasons connected with her ethnic origin, the employer subjected her to a "detriment" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976. We review the case of Garry v London Borough of Ealing.
In Fasipe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority a London South employment tribunal (Chair: G H K Meeran) has awarded compensation of £224,949 for race discrimination and victimisation.
In Anya v University of Oxford the Court of Appeal has ruled that where an employer behaves unreasonably towards a black employee, it is an error of law for a tribunal to direct itself that an inference of race discrimination is not to be drawn, without more, because the employer might very well behave in a similarly unreasonable fashion to a white employee.
In Anyanwu and another v South Bank Student Union and another (Commission for Racial Equality intervening), the House of Lords holds that the word "aids" in s.33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 is a familiar word in everyday use that bears no technical or special meaning in this context.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.