Equality, diversity and human rights >
Race discrimination
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 Madden v Preferred Technical Group Cha Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal holds that the tribunal did not misdirect itself by stating that conscious or deliberate motivation was immaterial in cases of discrimination.
In V v Addey & Stanhope School, the Court of Appeal holds that the extent of the employee's illegal and criminal conduct was such that it prevented him from pursuing a race discrimination claim.
In Laing Ltd v Essa, the Court of Appeal holds that an employee who suffered unlawful race discrimination which caused him psychiatric injury was entitled to recover compensation for that injury provided he could establish that the discrimination caused the damage.
In London Borough of Southwark v Ayton EAT/515/03, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's reasoning in finding victimisation and its recommendation that the respondent should arrange training in respect of racial awareness for the person held to have victimised the claimant, but remitted the claim to the employment tribunal to consider whether the allegation made by the claimant was false and not made in good faith.
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
In Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper and related cases the House of Lords interprets anti-discrimination legislation to mean that employees should be protected against certain acts of post-termination discrimination by their employer.
In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.
Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.