In Badara v Pulse Healthcare Ltd, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employer should not have relied solely on negative Home Office checks when it dismissed the employee for failing to provide right to work documentation.
The Supreme Court has held that claimants are not required in indirect discrimination claims to explain why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts, or would put, the affected group at a particular disadvantage.
The Supreme Court has held that an incremental pay structure that put Muslim chaplains in the prison service at a disadvantage compared to their Christian colleagues was indirectly discriminatory, but was justified.
David Malamatenios is a partner and Sandra Martins, Krishna Santra and Colin Makin are senior associates at
Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
The Court of Appeal has held that it is necessary in indirect discrimination claims for the claimant to show why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) has disadvantaged the group and the individual claimant.