Equality, diversity and human rights >
Sex discrimination
In Automotive and Financial Group Ltd v Bark the EAT has held that a compensation award of £2,000 for injury to feelings to a trainee salesperson, who was dismissed after she was sexually harassed, fell within the bracket of permissible awards.
The exception to the temporal limitation in the Barber decision in respect of workers who have already brought legal proceedings "or made an equivalent claim" only applies where the claim had been made to an independent third party with power to make a determination, holds a Bristol industrial tribunal (Chair: C G Toomer) in Howard v Ministry of Defence.
In Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd v Heads (1 September 1994) EOR59B, the EAT rules that a remark about a woman's breasts subjected her to a detriment and was unlawfully discriminatory. The EAT recommends that the employers adopt a sexual harassment procedure to prevent future incidents.
In Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd and another v Heads the EAT rejects an employer's argument that a single act cannot amount to sexual harassment until it has been done and rejected as "unwanted conduct".
In Edwards v London Underground Ltd a London North industrial tribunal (Chair: R Upex) rules that new rostering arrangements introduced as part of a £10 million cost-saving plan indirectly discriminated against a female train operator, who was a single parent.
Where an employee was told that a decision to transfer her was taken because she was a woman, the employers could not avoid a finding of sex discrimination by showing that the true reason for their decision was her unsatisfactory performance, rules the EAT in Allen v Cannon Hygiene Ltd.
Rejecting the defence that being a woman was a "personal services" genuine occupational qualification for the post, a Nottingham industrial tribunal (Chair: D R Sneath) in Moult v Nottinghamshire County Council rules that it was unlawful to refuse an application from a man for a teaching post on women-only courses run by an all-women organisation.
The European Court of Justice has handed down its rulings in six cases on issues relating to sex equality and occupational pension schemes in light of the decision in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group EOR32A.
An employer who told the Employment Service that he wanted job vacancies to be filled by women "because of their nimble fingers", did not attempt to procure an unlawful act, according to a Birmingham industrial tribunal (Chair: A C Tickle) in Equal Opportunities Commission v (1) Storey and Bloor (2) JES Manufacturing Co.
In Bristow v Secretary of State for Defence a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: T J Mason) has expressed doubt about aspects of the guidance given by the EAT in Ministry of Defence v Cannock and others EOR57E on assessing compensation for servicewomen who were dismissed contrary to EC law because of their pregnancy.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex discrimination.