Equality, diversity and human rights
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.
Twenty-eight years after its birth, TUPE still raises thorny questions. Its complexity is evidenced by the number of groundbreaking tribunal cases which have come to the fore recently, many of which could have far-reaching ramifications at a time of economic instability, writes Lesley Murphy.
In London Borough of Islington v Ladele EAT/0453/08, the EAT overturned the employment tribunal decision that a Christian registrar who was disciplined for refusing to undertake civil partnership duties was subjected to religious discrimination.
In English v Thomas Sanderson Blinds [2008] EWCA Civ 1421 CA, the Court of Appeal held that alleged homophobic abuse towards a man who is not gay, and aware that the perpetrators did not believe him to be gay, amounts to harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal was not wrong to hold that a claim was out of time and there was no continuing act of discrimination. Nor was it wrong not to exercise its discretion to hear the claim on just and equitable grounds.
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.