In Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2010] IRLR 132 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who was bullied at work by her line manager had been harassed within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. While the Court had to keep in mind the need for the conduct complained of to be serious enough to sustain criminal liability, the key test was whether or not it was "oppressive and unacceptable". On the unchallenged evidence before the Court, it clearly was.
In Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a registrar with strong Christian beliefs about marriage who was threatened with dismissal for refusing to carry out civil partnership work did not suffer unlawful religious discrimination.
In Chagger v Abbey National plc and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employment tribunals should ask a Polkey-type question when considering loss of earnings flowing from a discriminatory dismissal. The Court also ruled that, in appropriate cases, compensation for loss of earnings may include an element of "stigma" loss.
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.