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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In Scott v Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal erred in awarding only £15,000 in respect of the psychiatric injury caused to an employee by the way in which his employer dealt with allegations of sexual harassment made against him by a work colleague.