This is a preview. To continue reading, register for free access now. Register now or Log in

Sex and race discrimination: Direct discrimination

expand disabled
(1) Reed and (2) Bull Information Systems Ltd v Stedman [1999] IRLR 299 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and another [2004] IRLR 573 HL (1 other report)
- Transsexual discrimination: Transsexual entitled to recognition of reassigned gender
  
  Date:
  
  2 July 2004
  
  In A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and another, the House of Lords holds that refusing to employ a post-operative male-to-female transsexual was an act of unlawful discrimination.
expand
Abbey National plc v Formoso [1999] IRLR 222 EAT (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: Correct approach to assessing loss of earnings flowing from discriminatory dismissal
  
  Date:
  
  15 May 1999
  
  In Abbey National plc v Formoso, the EAT rejects an employment tribunal's "reasonable employer" approach to calculating the financial loss flowing from a discriminatory dismissal.
expand disabled
Adekeye v The Post Office (No.2) [1997] IRLR 105 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Anya v University of Oxford and another [2001] IRLR 377 CA (1 other report)
- Unreasonable behaviour may justify inference
  
  Date:
  
  1 June 2001
  
  In Anya v University of Oxford the Court of Appeal has ruled that where an employer behaves unreasonably towards a black employee, it is an error of law for a tribunal to direct itself that an inference of race discrimination is not to be drawn, without more, because the employer might very well behave in a similarly unreasonable fashion to a white employee.
expand
Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting [2002] IRLR 288 CA (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: When to construct hypothetical comparator
  
  Date:
  
  15 June 2002
  
  In Balamoody v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal should have constructed a hypothetical comparator against which to consider whether there was evidence to support an inference that the complainant's treatment had been tainted with race discrimination. And the EAT holds in Williams v H M Prison Service that there is no additional duty on a tribunal to construct and consider the position of a hypothetical comparator.
expand disabled
Balgobin and Francis v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [1987] IRLR 401 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
BBC Scotland v Souster [2001] IRLR 150 CS (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: "National origins" means more than nationality acquired at birth
  
  Date:
  
  1 February 2001
  
  The meaning of "national origins" in the Race Relations Act 1976 is not limited to the concept of nationality in a legal sense, and thus to the citizenship that an individual may acquire at birth, holds the Inner House, Court of Session in BBC Scotland v Souster.
expand disabled
Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust v Al-Shabib [2003] IRLR 4 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
British Telecommunications plc v Roberts and Longstaffe [1996] IRLR 601 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
British Telecommunications plc v Williams [1997] IRLR 668 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Brumfitt v Ministry of Defence and another [2005] IRLR 4 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Bullock v Alice Ottley School [1992] IRLR 564 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority [1994] IRLR 7 EAT (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: Cap requirement not discriminatory
  
  Date:
  
  1 January 1994
  
  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.
expand disabled
Cardiff Women's Aid v Hartup [1994] IRLR 390 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Carrington v Helix Lighting Ltd [1990] IRLR 6 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Chapman and another v Simon [1994] IRLR 124 CA (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Constabulary v Graham [2002] IRLR 239 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Vento [2001] IRLR 124 EAT (1 other report)
- Evidence of how comparator would be treated
  
  Date:
  
  1 March 2001
  
  The EAT has ruled, in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Vento, that evidence of the treatment afforded to comparators in similar, even if not the same situations, can be relied upon as evidence of how a hypothetical comparator would have been treated.
expand disabled
Clymo v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1989] IRLR 241 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton [1989] IRLR 8 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another v Morgan [2002] IRLR 776 EAT (1 other report)
- "Institutionalised racism" comment decried
  
  Date:
  
  1 May 2002
  
  In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Morgan (6 February 2002), the EAT criticises an employment tribunal for finding that there was "institutionalised" racism in the Revenue's solicitors' department.
expand disabled
Croft v Royal Mail Group plc [2003] IRLR 592 CA (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Dattani v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police [2005] IRLR 327 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Dawkins v Department of the Environment sub nom Crown Suppliers PSA [1993] IRLR 284 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Day v T Pickles Farms Ltd [1999] IRLR 217 EAT (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: Failure to carry out risk assessment could have amounted to detriment
  
  Date:
  
  15 March 1999
  
  In Day v T Pickles Farms Ltd, the EAT holds that an employer who failed to make an assessment of the risks to the health and safety of a woman of child-bearing age employed in a sandwich shop no later than the date she started working there, and certainly before she became pregnant, could thereby have subjected her to a "detriment" within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
expand
Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348 EAT (1 other report)
- Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson
  
  Date:
  
  1 June 2004
  
  In Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a workplace dress code that requires men to wear a collar and tie and women to dress appropriately to a similar standard may not be discriminatory on the grounds of sex.
expand disabled
Dhatt v McDonalds Hamburgers Ltd [1991] IRLR 130 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd) [1982] IRLR 281 EAT (1 other report)
- Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd)
  
  Date:
  
  1 July 1982
  
  In Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd) [1982] IRLR 281 EAT, the EAT held that the employer's conscious motive for taking a particular course of action, whilst it may be relevant, is not the decisive factor when considering whether racial discrimination has taken place.
expand disabled
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Ltd v Adebayo [2005] IRLR 514 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Fletcher and others v Blackpool Fylde & Ware Hospitals NHS Trust and another [2005] IRLR 689 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Garry v London Borough of Ealing [2001] IRLR 681 CA (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: Continued investigation of which employee was unaware was a detriment
  
  Date:
  
  17 December 2001
  
  The Court of Appeal holds that when an employer continued an investigation into the activities of a black female employee for longer than an ordinary investigation would have taken, for reasons connected with her ethnic origin, the employer subjected her to a "detriment" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976. We review the case of Garry v London Borough of Ealing.
expand
Hardman v Mallon t/a Orchard Lodge Nursing Home [2002] IRLR 516 EAT (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: Failure to carry out risk assessment for pregnant woman is discrimination
  
  Date:
  
  21 February 2003
  
  In Hardman v Mallon, t/a Orchard Lodge Nursing Home, the EAT holds that a failure to carry out a risk assessment in respect of a pregnant employee as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 amounts to unlawful sex discrimination. This is because carrying out a risk assessment is one of the ways in which a woman's biological condition during and after pregnancy is given special protection.
expand disabled
Hoyland v Asda Stores Ltd [2005] IRLR 438 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong and other cases [2005] IRLR 258 CA (2 other reports)
- Burden of proof guidelines revised
  
  Date:
  
  1 April 2005
  
  In a hearing of three conjoined appeals (Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors and another v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, 18 February 2005), the Court of Appeal considers the guidelines established in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd (EOR 118) and sets out revised guidance on the burden of proof provisions in the discrimination legislation.
- Discrimination: Burden of proof finally reversed in direct discrimination claims
  
  Date:
  
  25 March 2005
  
  In Igen Ltd & ors v Wong; Chamberlin Solicitors & ors v Emokpae; Brunel University v Webster, the Court of Appeal holds that the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976, in order to implement the Burden of Proof Directive (97/80/EC), require a two-stage process to determine direct discrimination.
expand
Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd and another v Heads [1995] IRLR 4 EAT (2 other reports)
- Sex discrimination: Single remark can constitute sexual harassment
  
  Date:
  
  1 January 1995
  
  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".
- Sexual remark discriminatory
  
  Date:
  
  1 January 1995
  
  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.
expand disabled
Iske v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1997] IRLR 401 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Jaffrey v Department of Environment Transport and Regions [2002] IRLR 688 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1989] IRLR 318 CA (0 other reports)
expand
James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] IRLR 288 HL (2 other reports)
- Gender-based criteria are directly discriminatory
  
  Date:
  
  1 September 1990
  
  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.
- Sex discrimination: Lords approve "but for" test in direct discrimination cases
  
  Date:
  
  17 July 1990
  
  In a sex discrimination case the crucial question is whether the complainant would have received the same treatment but for his or her sex.
expand
Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence [1979] IRLR 436 CA (1 other report)
- Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence
  
  Date:
  
  1 November 1979
  
  In Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence [1979] IRLR 436 CA, the Court of Appeal held that "subjecting to detriment" in the context of discrimination by employers, does not mean anything more than "putting under a disadvantage".
expand disabled
Jiad v Byford and others [2003] IRLR 232 CA (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Lewis Woolf Griptight Ltd v Corfield [1997] IRLR 432 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
London Borough of Lambeth v Commission for Racial Equality [1990] IRLR 231 CA (0 other reports)
expand
M Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops Ltd [1977] IRLR 360 EAT (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: EAT rules dress and appearance standards not discriminatory
  
  Date:
  
  1 September 1977
  
  Rules which lay down standards of dress and appearance for both women and men are unlikely to constitute unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex, even if they impose different requirements on women (such as prohibition on wearing trousers) than on men, based on the difference in sexes. This is the principle which emerges from the recent EAT case of Schmidt v Austicks Bookshops.
expand
Macdonald v Advocate General for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School [2003] IRLR 512 HL (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: House of Lords rules on important sex discrimination issues
  
  Date:
  
  15 August 2003
  
  In MacDonald v AG for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School, the House of Lords holds that a homosexual who is dismissed or harassed because of his or her sexual orientation must be compared with a homosexual of the opposite gender for the purposes of establishing direct sex discrimination.
expand
Madden v Preferred Technical Group Cha Ltd and another [2005] IRLR 46 CA (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: Alleged discriminator's racist motive relevant, but not required
  
  Date:
  
  28 January 2005
  
  In Madden v Preferred Technical Group Cha Ltd and another, the Court of Appeal holds that the tribunal did not misdirect itself by stating that conscious or deliberate motivation was immaterial in cases of discrimination.
expand
Mandla and another v Lee and others [1983] IRLR 209 HL (1 other report)
- Discrimination: Sikhs covered by Race Relations Act
  
  Date:
  
  10 May 1983
  
  In upholding a Sikh's complaint of indirect discrimination under the education provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, the House of Lords in Mandla and another v Lee and others adopts a broad interpretation of the definition of ethnic origins.
expand disabled
Mecca Leisure Group plc v Chatprachong [1993] IRLR 531 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Moonsar v Fiveways Express Transport Ltd [2005] IRLR 9 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Nagarajan v Agnew and others [1994] IRLR 61 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572 HL (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: Conscious motivation is not a prerequisite for victimisation
  
  Date:
  
  15 August 1999
  
  It was a sufficient basis for a claim of victimisation for an unsuccessful job applicant to show that those who had interviewed him were subconsciously influenced by their knowledge of the fact that he had previously done a protected act, holds the House of Lords in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport.
expand disabled
O'Neill v (1) Governors of St Thomas More RCVA Upper School (2) Bedfordshire County Council [1996] IRLR 372 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Owen & Briggs v James [1982] IRLR 502 CA (1 other report)
- Owen & Briggs v James
  
  Date:
  
  1 December 1982
  
  In Owen & Briggs v James [1982] IRLR 502 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Tribunal and the EAT had not erred in concluding that the appellants had acted in breach of the Race Relations Act by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer the respondent employment in that they had, on racial grounds, treated her less favourably than they had treated or would have treated other persons.
expand disabled
Qureshi v London Borough of Newham [1991] IRLR 264 CA (0 other reports)
expand disabled
R v Birmingham City Council ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1989] IRLR 173 HL (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Re Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland's application [1989] IRLR 64 HC (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Redfearn v Serco Ltd t/a West Yorkshire Transport Service [2005] IRLR 744 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Rihal v London Borough of Ealing [2004] IRLR 642 CA (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Robson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and others [1998] IRLR 186 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] IRLR 285 HL (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination: The comparison exercise in direct sex discrimination claims
  
  Date:
  
  9 May 2003
  
  In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the House of Lords holds that in cases where a complainant alleges direct sex discrimination, the statutory comparison requires that all the circumstances that are relevant to the way the complainant was treated are the same as, or not materially different from, the circumstances of the comparator.
expand disabled
Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology [2000] IRLR 602 CA (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Simon v Brimham Associates [1987] IRLR 307 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Smith v Safeway plc [1996] IRLR 456 CA (2 other reports)
- Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory
  
  Date:
  
  1 September 1996
  
  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.
- Sex discrimination: Men's hair-length restriction not discriminatory
  
  Date:
  
  1 July 1996
  
  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.
expand disabled
Stewart v Cleveland Guest (Engineering) Ltd [1994] IRLR 440 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Tejani v The Superintendent Registrar for the District of Peterborough [1986] IRLR 502 CA (0 other reports)
expand
The Home Office v Holmes [1984] IRLR 299 EAT (1 other report)
- Discrimination: Ban on part-timers unjustified
  
  Date:
  
  7 August 1984
  
  In The Home Office v Holmes, the EAT holds that a ban on part-time work can amount to unlawful sex discrimination.
expand disabled
V Saunders v Richmond Upon Thames Borough Council [1977] IRLR 362 EAT (0 other reports)
expand disabled
Wakeman and others v Quick Corporation and another [1999] IRLR 424 CA (0 other reports)
expand
Weathersfield Ltd t/a Van & Truck Rentals v Sargent [1999] IRLR 94 CA (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: White woman told to discriminate against black people was herself racially discriminated against
  
  Date:
  
  15 January 1999
  
  A white woman who left her job with a vehicle rental company because she objected to its policy of not hiring vehicles to black people was herself the victim of unlawful race discrimination, holds the Court of Appeal in Weathersfield Ltd (t/a Van & Truck Rentals) v Sargent.
expand
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No.2) [1995] IRLR 645 HL (1 other report)
- Sex discrimination and pregnancy: Pregnancy dismissal was unlawful sex discrimination
  
  Date:
  
  1 November 1995
  
  An employer directly discriminates against a pregnant woman contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 if, having recruited her for an indefinite period, it dismisses her because she will be temporarily unavailable for work at a time when she knows that she will be particularly needed, holds the House of Lords in Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd.
expand disabled
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1993] IRLR 27 HL (0 other reports)
expand
West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive v Singh [1988] IRLR 186 CA (1 other report)
- Discrimination: Past conduct relevant to discrimination complaint
  
  Date:
  
  19 July 1988
  
  Two recent appellate decisions have confirmed that evidence of the employers' past discriminatory actions or attitudes may be relevant in determining whether they have discriminated in the case under consideration.
expand disabled
Wileman v Minilec Engineering Ltd [1988] IRLR 144 EAT (0 other reports)
expand
Zafar v Glasgow City Council [1998] IRLR 36 HL (1 other report)
- Race discrimination: Reasonableness irrelevant to less favourable treatment
  
  Date:
  
  1 February 1998
  
  The concept of direct discrimination under the Race Relations Act requires it to be shown that the claimant has been treated by the person against whom the discrimination is alleged less favourably than that person treats or would have treated another, the House of Lords rules in Zafar v Glasgow City Council.
expand disabled
Zurich Insurance Co v Gulson [1998] IRLR 118 EAT (0 other reports)

This section of the Discrimination Case Law Guide looks at direct sex and race discrimination.

Burden of proof
Meaning of "less favourable"
Discriminatory treatment
     Motive
     Stereotypical assumptions
     Causation
     Statutory comparison
     Evidence
          Standard of proof
          Scope of evidence
          Discovery and particulars
               General principles
               Confidential documents
               Particulars
               Forms for questioning
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination
Discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment
Sexual orientation discrimination
Discrimination against married persons
Racial grounds
     Vicarious discrimination
Segregation
Sex and race discrimination by employers
     Selection arrangements
     Offer of employment
     Promotion, transfer or training
     Access to benefits
     Dismissal
     Detrimental treatment
          General principles
          Harassment and sexual harassment
          Appearance
          Other examples
     Retirement

(1) A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purpose of any provision of this Act if -

(a) on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons â€¦
Race Relations Act - s.1

(1) A person discriminates against a woman in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if -

(a) on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man â€¦
Sex Discrimination Act - s.1

(1) This section applies where a complaint is presented under section 54 and the complaint is that the respondent -

(a) has committed an act of discrimination, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, which is unlawful by virtue of any provision referred to in section 1(1B)(a), (e) or (f), or Part IV in its application to those provisions, or

(b) has committed an act of harassment.

Employment law cases

Sex and race discrimination: Direct discrimination

Transsexual discrimination: Transsexual entitled to recognition of reassigned gender

Sex discrimination: Correct approach to assessing loss of earnings flowing from discriminatory dismissal

Unreasonable behaviour may justify inference

Race discrimination: When to construct hypothetical comparator

Race discrimination: "National origins" means more than nationality acquired at birth

Sex discrimination: Cap requirement not discriminatory

Evidence of how comparator would be treated

"Institutionalised racism" comment decried

Sex discrimination: Failure to carry out risk assessment could have amounted to detriment

Department for Work and Pensions v Thompson

Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd)

Race discrimination: Continued investigation of which employee was unaware was a detriment

Sex discrimination: Failure to carry out risk assessment for pregnant woman is discrimination

Burden of proof guidelines revised

Discrimination: Burden of proof finally reversed in direct discrimination claims

Sex discrimination: Single remark can constitute sexual harassment

Sexual remark discriminatory

Gender-based criteria are directly discriminatory

Sex discrimination: Lords approve "but for" test in direct discrimination cases

Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence

Sex discrimination: EAT rules dress and appearance standards not discriminatory

Sex discrimination: House of Lords rules on important sex discrimination issues

Race discrimination: Alleged discriminator's racist motive relevant, but not required

Discrimination: Sikhs covered by Race Relations Act

Race discrimination: Conscious motivation is not a prerequisite for victimisation

Owen & Briggs v James

Sex discrimination: The comparison exercise in direct sex discrimination claims

Conventional appearance rule not discriminatory

Sex discrimination: Men's hair-length restriction not discriminatory

Discrimination: Ban on part-timers unjustified

Race discrimination: White woman told to discriminate against black people was herself racially discriminated against

Sex discrimination and pregnancy: Pregnancy dismissal was unlawful sex discrimination

Discrimination: Past conduct relevant to discrimination complaint

Race discrimination: Reasonableness irrelevant to less favourable treatment

About this resource

Sex and race discrimination: Direct discrimination