The Court of Appeal has held that the employer was not required to match each category of gross misconduct to each allegation
and that how the conduct was eventually categorised was a matter for the decision-maker after all the evidence had been adduced.
The Court of Appeal has held that the decision to reduce officer head count "to the fullest extent" by forcibly retiring police officers with 30 years' service was justified.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the dismissal of a teacher for showing an 18-rated film to a class of vulnerable 15- and 16-year-olds amounted to unfavourable treatment arising from his disability and was not justified.
In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.
In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest EAT/0318/15, the EAT affirmed that a finding of unfavourable treatment because of "something arising in consequence of" a claimant's disability can be made where there is no direct connection between the disability and the conduct leading to that treatment.
In this unusual case, an employment tribunal struck out four claimants' cases and ordered them to pay £17,371 each in costs after the respondent NHS trust's chief executive and lawyers were sent a covert recording of the trust receiving legal advice.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected a reasonable adjustments claim by an NHS worker with severe phobias of blood and needles. Ryan Stringer explains this recent decision on reasonable adjustments for a disabled person.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the dismissal of a Christian employee because of her refusal to end her marriage with a convicted sex offender was indirect religious discrimination.
The employment tribunal has upheld a claim for discrimination arising from disability against an employer that withdrew a job offer when it discovered the extent of the claimant's previous long-term ill-health absences.