Equality, diversity and human rights >
Race discrimination
An industrial tribunal has no power to award exemplary damages in a discrimination case, holds the EAT in Deane v London Borough of Ealing and another, following the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Gibbons and others v South West Water Services Ltd.
In Wetstein v (1) Misprestige Management Services Ltd (2) O'Farrell EAT/523/91, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a tribunal's finding that a requirement to work a full week did not constitute indirect race discrimination against those of the Jewish race.
In Hampson v Department of Education and Science, the Court of Appeal rules that the exemption in s.41 of the Race Relations Act 1976 for acts done in pursuance of statutory authority does not extend to all acts done under a statute or statutory instrument.
Two recent appellate decisions have confirmed that evidence of the employers' past discriminatory actions or attitudes may be relevant in determining whether they have discriminated in the case under consideration.
The Court of Appeal in R v Commission for Racial Equality (ex parte Westminster City Council) upholds the High Court's finding that employers are guilty of discriminatory conduct if they give into workforce pressure which is itself based on discrimination.
In upholding a Sikh's complaint of indirect discrimination under the education provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, the House of Lords in Mandla and another v Lee and others adopts a broad interpretation of the definition of ethnic origins.
In Owen & Briggs v James [1982] IRLR 502 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the Industrial Tribunal and the EAT had not erred in concluding that the appellants had acted in breach of the Race Relations Act by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer the respondent employment in that they had, on racial grounds, treated her less favourably than they had treated or would have treated other persons.
In Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd (Jersey Kapwood Ltd) [1982] IRLR 281 EAT, the EAT held that the employer's conscious motive for taking a particular course of action, whilst it may be relevant, is not the decisive factor when considering whether racial discrimination has taken place.
In Kingston & Richmond Area Health Authority v Kaur, the EAT has ruled that a requirement by a health authority that enrolled nurses wear a standard uniform which could not be varied is "justifiable" within the meaning of s.1(1)(b)(ii) of the Race Relations Act and that in applying such a requirement to a Sikh woman, whose religion requires her to wear trousers, the employers had not unlawfully indirectly discriminated against her.
In Panesar v The Nestle Co Ltd [1980] IRLR 64 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the respondents' rule forbidding beards in their chocolate factory was "justifiable" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976, section 1(1)(b).
HR and legal information and guidance relating to race discrimination.