Sector focus
In London Borough of Southwark v Ayton EAT/515/03, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's reasoning in finding victimisation and its recommendation that the respondent should arrange training in respect of racial awareness for the person held to have victimised the claimant, but remitted the claim to the employment tribunal to consider whether the allegation made by the claimant was false and not made in good faith.
In Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge [2003] IRLR 566 EAT, the EAT held that an employer's failure to carry out an assessment to enable a decision to be reached as to what steps would be reasonable to prevent a disabled employee or prospective employee from being at a disadvantage amounts to a breach of the duty of reasonable adjustment under section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Ngengfack v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWCA Civ 711 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee who had been seen working in the hairdressing salon that she owned while on sick leave from her teaching job had been fairly dismissed.
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.
In Ashton v Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary [2001] ICR 67 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal's decision that a male to female transsexual dismissed due to poor performance had not been discriminated against on grounds of sex, although the poor performance was linked to the side effects of medical treatment for gender reassignment. It also upheld a finding that the employee was not disabled within the meaning in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
In Lovett v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 12 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a clause that had been incorporated into an employee's written statement of employment particulars did not form part of his contract of employment because he had not agreed to it.
In Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] UKHL 29, the House of Lords allowed an appeal against a strike out of a claim for exemplary damages for the tort of misfeasance. It held that exemplary damages were not restricted to causes of action for which exemplary damages had been awarded prior to 1964. The House of Lords did not expressly decide whether exemplary damages should be available in discrimination cases.
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".
In Macfarlane and another v Glasgow City Council [2001] IRLR 7 EAT, the EAT held that, despite a clause in the worker's contract expressly entitling the worker to substitute a replacement to do the work if unable to attend work, the worker was deemed to be an employee rather than a sub-contractor.
In Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, the ECJ rules that all of the time spent on call by teams of doctors providing primary care at health centres was "working time", within the meaning of the EC Working Time Directive, if they were required to be at the health centres.
HR and legal information, news and guidance relating to specific industry sectors.