In Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 695 HL, the House of Lords holds that under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 employers will be vicariously liable for harassment committed by employees acting in the course of their employment.
In O'Hanlon v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs EAT/0109/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not require an employer to pay disabled employees on sick leave more than it pays non-disabled employees who are off sick.
In Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA Case C-13/05, first case to come before it on the issue, the ECJ finds that "disability" within the Framework Directive is not to be equated with "sickness" and that discrimination solely on the grounds of sickness does not fall within the scope of the Directive.
In Mohmed v West Coast Trains Ltd EAT/0682/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given the first appellate decision on religious discrimination.
In Caspersz v Ministry of Defence EAT/0599/05, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that an employer that introduced and implemented an effective dignity at work policy successfully defended sexual harassment claims even where the harasser was the manager with responsibility for implementing the policy.