Equality, diversity and human rights
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.
In Pulham and others v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham EAT/0516/08, the EAT held that it is open to an employer to seek to justify the adoption of discriminatory pay protection arrangements following the abolition of a discriminatory incremental pay scheme. However, in this case, the tribunal's decision to the effect that the employer was justified on the facts could not be upheld, because its approach to the assessment of justification was legally flawed.
In Da'Bell v NSPCC [2010] IRLR 19 EAT, the EAT has confirmed the increase of the Vento bands for compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases in line with inflation.
In Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4 EAT, the EAT held that the employee can challenge his dismissal as being an act of discrimination on grounds of his asserted philosophical belief in climate change and the environment, provided that he is able to establish that his belief is genuinely held and that it satisfies certain specified limitations and criteria as to the nature of the belief.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers sex discrimination.
The Court of Appeal has criticised an employment tribunal’s suggestion that tribunals should adopt a “liberal” approach when considering whether or not to extend the time limit for lodging a claim.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employer complied with its duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees when it moved an employee to another location where the adjustments could be more easily made.
In R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 HC, the High Court confirmed that the compulsory retirement of employees at or above the age of 65 by reference to the prescribed procedure in the age discrimination Regulations is lawful. However, the Court could not "see how 65 could remain" as the default retirement age, following the Government's review in 2010.
In Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT/0441/08, the EAT upheld a finding that the redundancy dismissal of a 49-year-old employee amounted to age discrimination. The tribunal was entitled to find that the employer could have found alternative work for him, but that it had failed to do so because it was concerned that, if he remained employed up to the age of 50, he would be entitled to a more generous early retirement package.
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.