Equality, diversity and human rights >
Race discrimination
In Hallam and another v Cheltenham Borough Council and others [2001] IRLR 312 HL, the House of Lords held that in order for there to be liability for knowingly aiding discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976, section 33(1) there must be "more than a general attitude of helpfulness and co-operation".
Despite the fact that, in appointing a "special adviser", the Lord Chancellor had applied a requirement that any appointee should be personally known to him, there was no disproportionate impact on gender or racial grounds, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chancellor's "area of association" was likely to be "skewed" against women and ethnic minorities, holds the EAT in The Lord Chancellor and another v Coker and Osamor.
The meaning of "national origins" in the Race Relations Act 1976 is not limited to the concept of nationality in a legal sense, and thus to the citizenship that an individual may acquire at birth, holds the Inner House, Court of Session in BBC Scotland v Souster.
In ICTS (UK) Ltd v Tchoula the EAT has found that an award of £27,000 for injury to feelings, including aggravated damages, to a black man who was found to have been dismissed because he had made allegations of race discrimination was so excessive as to amount to an error of law.
A person who "knowingly aids" another to do an unlawful act contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 is to be treated as doing such an act himself or herself. In this context, the word "aids" must be construed in accordance with its natural and ordinary meaning, which is to help or assist another who is the prime mover, holds the Court of Appeal in Anyanwu and another v (1) South Bank Students' Union (2) South Bank University.
Employment tribunals have jurisdiction to award compensation for the statutory tort of unlawful racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act, including damages for physical or psychiatric injury caused by the tort, holds the Court of Appeal in Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd.
It was a sufficient basis for a claim of victimisation for an unsuccessful job applicant to show that those who had interviewed him were subconsciously influenced by their knowledge of the fact that he had previously done a protected act, holds the House of Lords in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport.
A white woman who left her job with a vehicle rental company because she objected to its policy of not hiring vehicles to black people was herself the victim of unlawful race discrimination, holds the Court of Appeal in Weathersfield Ltd (t/a Van & Truck Rentals) v Sargent.
In Weathersfield Ltd t/a Van & Truck Rentals v Sargent, the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's finding that a white employee suffered unlawful race discrimination when she was instructed by her employer to discriminate on racial grounds against black and Asian people, and consequently resigned because she was put in an intolerable position.
In Marks & Spencer plc v Martins (19 December 1997) EOR79B, the Court of Appeal rules that it was an error for an industrial tribunal to find that the employer discriminated against an applicant on grounds of her race because its interviewers were guilty of "bias".
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.