Equality, diversity and human rights
In Gutridge and others v Sodexo Ltd and another [2009] IRLR 721 CA, the Court of Appeal held that equal pay claims in respect of employment prior to a TUPE transfer must be brought against the transferee within six months of the transfer. The six-month time limit for claims in respect of the post-transfer period does not start to run until the claimant's employment with the transferee ends.
In Hartlepool Borough Council v Llewellyn and other appeals [2009] IRLR 796 EAT, the EAT confirmed that male employees may institute contingent claims relying on female comparators who have instituted equal pay claims citing other more highly paid male colleagues. The male employees may be awarded arrears of pay for the same period as their comparators.
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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a special constable's inability to meet the physical requirements to become a regular constable is not an adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities when deciding whether or not she is disabled.
In Rolls-Royce plc v Unite [2009] EWCA Civ 387 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a redundancy selection matrix set out in a 2003 collective agreement was not automatically rendered unlawful following the implementation of the age discrimination legislation in 2006.
In Rank Nemo (DMS) Ltd v Coutinho [2009] EWCA Civ 454 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in refusing to accept a victimisation claim based on the respondent's failure to pay an award of compensation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in a claim of disability-related discrimination, and where the employer had failed to make a reasonable adjustment, the employment tribunal's failure to carry out a comparative exercise according to London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm did not invalidate its decision that there had been less favourable treatment for a reason related to the employee's disability.
In Chondol v Liverpool City Council EAT/0298/08, the EAT held that the employment tribunal was correct to draw a distinction between the employee's religious beliefs on the one hand and inappropriate promotion of those beliefs on the other. Since the employer would have reacted in the same way irrespective of the view (religious or otherwise) that was being promoted, the employee had not been treated less favourably on grounds of his religion or belief.
In Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that it was reasonable for a female employee of Indian ethnic origin to be offended by what she perceived to be a stereotypical reference to the possibility of her being "married off in India". This violated her dignity and amounted to unlawful racial harassment.
The European Court of Justice has held that the UK legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over if the reason for dismissal is retirement can, in principle, be justified under the Framework Directive.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.
Access our main resources on equality, diversity and human rights according to the type of information you need.