Equality, diversity and human rights >
Sex discrimination
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
£35,000 compensation has been awarded by a Glasgow industrial tribunal (Chair: C M Milne) in Given v Scottish Power plc to a woman who resigned after being denied her request to jobshare.
For a caterer to make a remark about "fucking waitresses" did not amount to sexual harassment, rules a Truro industrial tribunal (Chair: B E Walton) in Goodwin v Watkins.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex discrimination.