Topics

Equality, diversity and human rights

New and updated

  • Date:
    5 September 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Equal pay/sex discrimination: Indirect discrimination burden of proof lies on employee

    In Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that the burden of proof in indirect sex discrimination cases should be approached in the same way irrespective of whether a case is brought under Article 141 (previously 119) of the EC Treaty of Rome, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equal Pay Act 1970.

  • Date:
    1 September 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge

    In Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566 EAT, the EAT held that an employer's failure to carry out an assessment to enable a decision to be reached as to what steps would be reasonable to prevent a disabled employee or prospective employee from being at a disadvantage amounts to a breach of the duty of reasonable adjustment under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  • Date:
    15 August 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Discrimination: Employers liable for post-termination discrimination

    In Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper and related cases the House of Lords interprets anti-discrimination legislation to mean that employees should be protected against certain acts of post-termination discrimination by their employer.

  • Date:
    15 August 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: House of Lords rules on important sex discrimination issues

    In MacDonald v AG for Scotland; Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School, the House of Lords holds that a homosexual who is dismissed or harassed because of his or her sexual orientation must be compared with a homosexual of the opposite gender for the purposes of establishing direct sex discrimination.

  • Type:
    FAQs

    Can an employee make a claim of discrimination against their employer a few years after the alleged discrimination took place?

  • Date:
    18 July 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Disability discrimination: Individual with asymptomatic cancer "disabled" when treatment caused impairment

    In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that an individual suffering from urinary incontinence - not of itself a substantive "impairment" within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - is nonetheless disabled under that Act where the incontinence was caused by surgery conducted as a standard treatment for the progressive condition of asymptomatic cancer.

  • Date:
    3 July 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Equal pay and sex discrimination: New guidance on burden of proof in sex discrimination claims

    In Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd, the EAT holds that by the insertion of the new section 63A into the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a "shifting" burden of proof is introduced into sex discrimination claims, making it necessary to set out fresh guidance as to the correct approach for employment tribunals to take.

  • Type:
    Employment law cases

    Case round-up

    Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

  • Date:
    23 May 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Disability discrimination: Cause of impairment irrelevant to whether disability exists at material time

    In Power v Panasonic UK Ltd the EAT holds that In deciding whether a complainant has a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an employment tribunal should consider whether the disability alleged is one that falls within the meaning of the Act, or whether it is in fact an impairment which is excluded by reason of Regulations issued under the Act from being treated as such a disability.

  • Date:
    9 May 2003
    Type:
    Employment law cases

    Sex discrimination: The comparison exercise in direct sex discrimination claims

    In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the House of Lords holds that in cases where a complainant alleges direct sex discrimination, the statutory comparison requires that all the circumstances that are relevant to the way the complainant was treated are the same as, or not materially different from, the circumstances of the comparator.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.

Equality, diversity and human rights: quick links

Access our main resources on equality, diversity and human rights according to the type of information you need.