Equality, diversity and human rights

New and updated

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round up

  Judith Harris of Addleshaw Goddard brings you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provides advice on what to do about them.

• Date:

  15 July 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Equal pay: No non-economic losses in equal pay claims

  In Council of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne v Allan and others, Degnan and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, the EAT holds that there can be no claim for non-economic loss, that is for injury to feelings or for exemplary or aggravated damages, in claims under the Equal Pay Act 1970 because these are claims in contract rather than statutory torts, as in claims under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

• Date:

  27 May 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Disability discrimination: Employer knew of disability at recruitment and failed to adjust

  In Williams v J Walter Thompson Group Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal was correct to decide that a blind employee suffered unlawful disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal when her employer failed to provide her with the specialist equipment and training necessary for her to carry out the IT work for which she was appointed.

• Date:

  13 May 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Harassment/employer's liability: Employers held vicariously liable under 'stalking' legislation

  In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, the Court of Appeal holds that vicarious liability is not restricted to common law claims. An employer may be vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty imposed only on his employee, if that would be just and reasonable in light of a sufficiently close connection between the unlawful act and the employee's duties and/or if the risk of the employee's wrongdoing is "reasonably incidental" to the employee's duties and, further, if the statute does not expressly (or on its proper construction) exclude such vicarious liability.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round up

  Karen Smith and Sophy Robinson of Addleshaw Goddard bring you a comprehensive update on the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and provide advice on what to do about them.

• Date:

  1 April 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Burden of proof guidelines revised

  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.

• Date:

  25 March 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Discrimination: Burden of proof finally reversed in direct discrimination claims

  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.

• Type:

  Employment law cases

  Case round-up: Religious discrimination

  This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering Sunday working amounting to religious discrimination.

• Date:

  28 January 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Victimisation by sending letters warning of effect of claims

  In St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Derbyshire and others, the EAT holds that the tribunal did not err in law in finding that the council had victimised catering staff who had presented equal pay claims.

• Date:

  28 January 2005

  Type:

  Employment law cases

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

  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.