Equality, diversity and human rights

New and updated

• Date:

  1 March 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Administrative error justifies pay difference

  In Young v University of Edinburgh the EAT finds that an employer can establish a defence to an equal pay claim by showing that the difference in pay was genuinely due to an administrative error, which the employer could not rectify without creating further anomalies.

• Date:

  1 March 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Comparator must be of opposite sex

  The principle of equal pay under Article 119 of the EC Treaty only applies where the comparator is in fact of the opposite sex, the EAT holds in Collins v Wilkin Chapman, overruling the decision of an industrial tribunal that a claim could be brought where the comparator is perceived to be of the opposite sex, but is the same sex biologically.

• Date:

  1 March 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Claim for widower's pension blocked

  The exception to the temporal limitation in the Barber decision in respect of workers who have already brought legal proceedings "or made an equivalent claim" only applies where the claim had been made to an independent third party with power to make a determination, holds a Bristol industrial tribunal (Chair: C G Toomer) in Howard v Ministry of Defence.

• Date:

  1 March 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Overtime pay for part-timers

  In Stadt Lengerich v Helmig (15 December 1994) EOR60A, the European Court of Justice rules that there is no discrimination contrary to European Community law where a collective agreement provides that overtime supplements will be paid only when the normal working hours for full-time employees are exceeded.

• Date:

  1 February 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Equal pay: No discrimination against part-timers in overtime rules

  It is not contrary to EC equal pay law to restrict the payment of premium overtime rates only to employees who work more than the designated number of normal full-time hours, holds the European Court of Justice in Stadt Lengerich v Helmig and five joined cases.

• Date:

  1 January 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sex discrimination: Single remark can constitute sexual harassment

  In Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd and another v Heads the EAT rejects an employer's argument that a single act cannot amount to sexual harassment until it has been done and rejected as "unwanted conduct".

• Date:

  1 January 1995

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Sexual remark discriminatory

  In Insitu Cleaning Co Ltd v Heads (1 September 1994) EOR59B, the EAT rules that a remark about a woman's breasts subjected her to a detriment and was unlawfully discriminatory. The EAT recommends that the employers adopt a sexual harassment procedure to prevent future incidents.

• Date:

  1 December 1994

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Aggravated damages for failure to apologise

  In Patel and Harewood v T & K Home Improvements Ltd and Johnson a Bedford industrial tribunal (Chair: C Tribe) awards aggravated damages against an employer who treated workplace notices which contained racially abusive material as a joke during tribunal proceedings and did not offer an apology to the complainants.

• Date:

  1 December 1994

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Rostering scheme discriminated

  In Edwards v London Underground Ltd a London North industrial tribunal (Chair: R Upex) rules that new rostering arrangements introduced as part of a £10 million cost-saving plan indirectly discriminated against a female train operator, who was a single parent.

• Date:

  1 December 1994

  Type:

  Employment law cases

  Objective rather than subjective test

  Where an employee was told that a decision to transfer her was taken because she was a woman, the employers could not avoid a finding of sex discrimination by showing that the true reason for their decision was her unsatisfactory performance, rules the EAT in Allen v Cannon Hygiene Ltd.