Equality, diversity and human rights >
Sex discrimination
This employment tribunal ruling provides a useful example for line managers and staff of the wide variety of conduct that can amount to sexual harassment.
Ceri Hughes, David Parry, and Carly Mather, associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O'Neil, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
In Dansie v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis EAT/0234/09, the EAT held that a police force did not treat a male trainee officer less favourably on grounds of sex by requiring him to have his hair cut, when the same requirement would not have been demanded of a female officer with a similar hairstyle.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers sex discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned an employment tribunal finding that an employer was motivated by an employee's gender when it failed to follow its disciplinary process when it dismissed him, following an allegation of rape made against him. The EAT held that, although tribunals must be alive to the fact that stereotypical views of male and female behaviour exist, there must be evidence for a tribunal to conclude that an employer has been motivated by those views.
In Tradition Securities and Futures SA v X and another EAT/0202/08, the EAT held that, where an employee of a French company had worked in Paris for three years before transferring to the company's London office for two years, and complained of unlawful sex discrimination throughout all five years of her employment, the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear only the complaints about her alleged treatment in London.
In Stevenson v JM Skinner & Co EAT/0584/07, the EAT held that an employer complied with its statutory duty to carry out a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee when it addressed her concerns at meetings with her and, taking account of all the circumstances, evaluated and agreed the relevant risks.
In Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flockner OHG [2008] IRLR 387, the ECJ held that the protection afforded by the Pregnant Workers Directive against dismissal on grounds of pregnancy does not extend to a woman undergoing IVF treatment who was dismissed when in-vitro-fertilised ova existed but had not yet been transferred to her uterus. However, if she was dismissed essentially because she had undergone this advanced stage of IVF treatment, her dismissal would amount to direct sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive.
In Shaw v CCL Ltd EAT/0512/06, the EAT held that an employee whose request to work part time on her return from maternity leave was refused had been constructively unfairly dismissed.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to sex discrimination.