Equality, diversity and human rights >
Sex discrimination
The standards set out in the European Commission Code of Practice on measures to combat sexual harassment at work are now regularly used by industrial tribunals, as Felstead v Dennis's Coaches and others, Roberts v Nolene Ltd and others, and Shaw v Northern Ireland Hospice and another illustrate.
A job applicant who during her job interview was asked questions about her childminding arrangements and whether her husband objected to her working evenings, was not unlawfully discriminated against, rules a Bedford industrial tribunal (Chair: C Tribe) in Twilley v Tompkins.
A woman who was dismissed three months after returning from maternity leave for lack of commitment when in contrast a male colleague who lacked commitment was counselled and promoted, was discriminated on grounds of sex, rules a Reading industrial tribunal (Chair V K Leese) in Pestell v Esselte Meto Ltd.
In Homewood v Ministry of Defence a Glasgow industrial tribunal (Chair: H J Murphy) has awarded £299,851 to a former army major who was forced to resign when she became pregnant.
In Stoke-on-Trent Community Transport v Cresswell the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that the dismissal of a woman for wearing trousers at work amounted to sex discrimination, because male employees were not subject to any rules or disciplinary sanctions in respect of their appearance.
In Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority the EAT upholds an industrial tribunal's decision that a female nurse, disciplined for refusing to wear a starched linen cap which male nurses did not have to wear, was not treated less favourably on grounds of sex.
In Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health (27 October 1993) EOR52A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is not sufficient for an employer to show that significant pay differences between female-dominated jobs and male-dominated jobs arose for non-discriminatory reasons.
In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No.2) (2 August 1993) EOR51A, the European Court of Justice rules that it is contrary to European Community law for a fixed upper limit to be placed on the compensation which can be awarded for the loss and damage suffered as a result of sex discrimination.
In Jones v University of Manchester the Court of Appeal considers for the first time how a tribunal should define the "pool" of people upon which it should base its calculation of whether a requirement imposed by an employer indirectly discriminates against one sex.
In James v Eastleigh Borough Council (14 June 1990) EOR33B, the House of Lords holds that the test for determining whether there has been direct discrimination is "would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?". It is not necessary for complainants to prove in addition that the subjective reason they were treated less favourably was because of their gender.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex discrimination.