Equality, diversity and human rights >
Race discrimination
In Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Court of Appeal holds that where an appointment is made from a close circle of family or friends, this will rarely constitute indirect discrimination as the vast majority of the relevant pool of potential candidates will be excluded. It will therefore not be possible to show that the requirement of personal knowledge has the disproportionate impact necessary to found a discrimination claim.
In Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon [2001] EWCA Civ 2005 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employment tribunal was wrong to infer knowledge of a protected act on the part of three councillors who had decided not to offer a job to the claimant, and therefore to find victimisation, since knowledge on the part of the alleged discriminator of the protected act is a pre-condition to a finding of victimisation.
The Court of Appeal holds that when an employer continued an investigation into the activities of a black female employee for longer than an ordinary investigation would have taken, for reasons connected with her ethnic origin, the employer subjected her to a "detriment" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976. We review the case of Garry v London Borough of Ealing.
In Fasipe v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority a London South employment tribunal (Chair: G H K Meeran) has awarded compensation of £224,949 for race discrimination and victimisation.
In Anya v University of Oxford the Court of Appeal has ruled that where an employer behaves unreasonably towards a black employee, it is an error of law for a tribunal to direct itself that an inference of race discrimination is not to be drawn, without more, because the employer might very well behave in a similarly unreasonable fashion to a white employee.
In Anyanwu and another v South Bank Student Union and another (Commission for Racial Equality intervening), the House of Lords holds that the word "aids" in s.33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 is a familiar word in everyday use that bears no technical or special meaning in this context.
In Hallam and another v Cheltenham Borough Council and others [2001] IRLR 312 HL, the House of Lords held that in order for there to be liability for knowingly aiding discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976, section 33(1) there must be "more than a general attitude of helpfulness and co-operation".
Despite the fact that, in appointing a "special adviser", the Lord Chancellor had applied a requirement that any appointee should be personally known to him, there was no disproportionate impact on gender or racial grounds, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chancellor's "area of association" was likely to be "skewed" against women and ethnic minorities, holds the EAT in The Lord Chancellor and another v Coker and Osamor.
The meaning of "national origins" in the Race Relations Act 1976 is not limited to the concept of nationality in a legal sense, and thus to the citizenship that an individual may acquire at birth, holds the Inner House, Court of Session in BBC Scotland v Souster.
In ICTS (UK) Ltd v Tchoula the EAT has found that an award of £27,000 for injury to feelings, including aggravated damages, to a black man who was found to have been dismissed because he had made allegations of race discrimination was so excessive as to amount to an error of law.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.