Employment law cases

All items: Sex discrimination

  • Sex discrimination: "Requirement or condition" need not be absolute bar

    Date:
    15 October 1997

    A "requirement or condition" applied by an employer does not have to constitute an absolute bar in order for it to be challenged as amounting to indirect sex discrimination, holds the EAT in Falkirk Council and others v Whyte and others.

  • Qualifying period to ECJ

    Date:
    1 May 1997

    In R v Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith and Perez (13 March 1997) EOR73A, the House of Lords refers questions to the European Court of Justice relating to whether the increase in the qualifying period for bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal from one to two years indirectly discriminated against women contrary to European Community law.

  • Sex discrimination: Comparing proportionate impact of "requirement or condition"

    Date:
    15 April 1997

    An industrial tribunal was entitled to conclude that the proportion of female train operators who could comply with a new roster (95.2%) was "considerably smaller" than the proportion of male train operators who could do so (100%), holds the EAT in London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No.2).

  • Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc

    Date:
    31 December 1996

    In Bamber v Fuji International Finance Plc [1996] ET/28081/94, an employment tribunal found that Miss Bamber had been sexually discriminated against in relation to promotion. The award of compensation included £20,000 aggravated damages.

  • Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 September 1996

    In Smith v Safeway plc (16 February 1996) EOR69A, the Court of Appeal holds that an appearance code which applies a standard of what is conventional applies an even-handed approach between men and women, and not one which is sex discriminatory.

  • Sex discrimination: Men's hair-length restriction not discriminatory

    Date:
    1 July 1996

    In Smith v Safeway plc, the Court of Appeal holds that an industrial tribunal was entitled to decide that an employer's appearance code which required male employees' hair not to be below collar-length was not discriminatory.

  • No liability for victimisation

    Date:
    1 November 1995

    In Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (14 February 1995) EOR64B, the EAT rules that an employer could not be not liable for victimising an employee who alleged that she was sexually harassed by a work colleague, where the alleged harassment was not committed in the course of employment.

  • Sex discrimination: Victimisation complaint requires employer to be vicariously liable

    Date:
    1 October 1995

    In Waters v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the EAT holds that an industrial tribunal correctly rejected a complaint by a female employee that she was victimised by her employer because she alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by a male colleague.

  • Sex discrimination: No exemplary damages for breach of Directive

    Date:
    1 September 1995

    In Ministry of Defence v Meredith, the EAT holds that exemplary damages are not available to an ex-servicewoman who was dismissed contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive because she was pregnant.

  • Mobility clause challenged

    Date:
    1 September 1995

    In Meade-Hill and another v British Council (7 April 1995), the Court of Appeal holds that a contractual mobility clause was capable of challenge on grounds that it was indirectly sex discriminatory, notwithstanding that the term had not yet been invoked, and that it was a term with an adverse impact upon women because a higher proportion of women than men are secondary earners who would find it impossible to move their workplace to a destination which involved a change of home. The Court of Appeal does not deal, however, with whether the mobility clause was justifiable.

About this category

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