In Harron v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2016] IRLR 481 EAT, the EAT allowed the employee's appeal against the ruling that his passionate belief in efficient use of public money did not constitute a "philosophical belief", on the basis that it was unclear if the tribunal had properly applied the necessary criteria. The issue was remitted to the tribunal for fresh consideration.
In this German case, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that a person who applies for a job with the sole purpose of making an application for compensation for discrimination is not covered by the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) or the Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment Directive (2006/54/EC) and may be considered as having committed an abuse of rights under EU law.
We round up three recent employment tribunal awards for discrimination arising from disability under the Equality Act 2010. The compensation awarded in these three cases totals over £25,000.
In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest EAT/0318/15, the EAT affirmed that a finding of unfavourable treatment because of "something arising in consequence of" a claimant's disability can be made where there is no direct connection between the disability and the conduct leading to that treatment.
Consultant editor Darren Newman considers a recent indirect sex discrimination case that highlights the problems that an employer can face when it has to balance the working-pattern requests of individual employees against the needs of the workforce as a whole, and its need to provide an effective service.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ordered the employment tribunal to reconsider whether or not a claimant's philosophical belief in the "proper and efficient use of public money in the public sector" is protected under the Equality Act 2010. Kate Hodgkiss explains the EAT's decision.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the employment tribunal has no power to stay proceedings indefinitely for the purpose of compelling the claimants to bring a new action in the High Court.