Disability Discrimination - Direct disability discrimination The Claimant, who was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, was employed as a solicitor by the Respondent, the service company of a well know firm of solicitors. Reasonable adjustments were agreed to facilitate the Claimant's working. These proved satisfactory and enabled the Claimant to carry out his duties to the complete satisfaction of his clients and without any commercial disadvantage to the Res ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal Employee acting in person, claiming discrimination and unfair dismissal, failed to answer request for particulars, very largely concerned with the discrimination allegations. Striking-out of discrimination claims upheld but striking out of unfair dismissal claim held to be disproportionate.
|
Sex Discrimination - Injury to feelings Where there is overlap between the basis of aggravated damages and compensation for injury to feelings, double counting should be avoided but a reasonable sum may be awarded for uncompensated aggravating elements of the conduct which forms the basis of the awards – Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] IRLR 102 paragraph 68 applied. Conduct of proceedings justified part of the award of aggravated damages – Zaiwalla & Co ...
|
Race Discrimination - Direct This is an appeal regarding numerous complaints of direct discrimination/victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA). Whether the Employment Tribunal reasoning passed the Meek test. With one exception it did not; those matters remitted to fresh Employment Tribunal for rehearing. On the question of whether s.54A RRA applies to Direct Discrimination on ground of colour affirmative answer in Chagger [2009] IRLR 86 preferred to negative answer in Okonu ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Case Management An Employment Tribunal did not err in law when it upheld the Claimant’s claim in part that she had been discriminated against by being excluded from a recruitment process, in which as a manager she should have been involved, on the ground of her race, and as an aggregate of all the events of which the Claimant complained she was constructively unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal’s refusal to allow a Respondent’s late application to ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal Unless the Claimant’s contentions can be rejected without any evidence being heard, it is an error of law to strike out a case as having no reasonable prospects of success on the basis that it is unarguable. In the instant case, whilst it might be difficult for the Claimant to persuade a full tribunal that she had not been guilty of academic fraud and thus not committed acts of gross misconduct and that her dismissal owed nothing to h ...
|
Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Claimant summarily dismissed, without any kind of process, on the basis of an allegation that he had raped a colleague – Dismissal without due process held by the Tribunal to constitute sex discrimination on the basis that the employer had feared that if Claimant were not dismissed summarily he might commit violence towards the complainant or others; and that that fear was on the ground of his sex. Held that there was no sufficient basis in ...
|
Sex Discrimination - Indirect This is an appeal by the MOD against ET’s findings of indirect sex and race discrimination. Claimant was a female soldier in the army, from St. Vincent & the Grenadines, who was also a single parent with a young daughter. The ET found that two provisions, criteria or practices were applied to her by the MOD, namely that she be a soldier available for deployment on a 24/7 basis; and also that she could not have a member of her extended family ...
|
Unfair Dismissal The Appellant was dismissed from his post as a teacher. The Employment Tribunal held the principal reason for his dismissal was his dishonesty in stating he held Qualified Teacher status. The Employment Tribunal decision failed to give adequate reasons as to why the decision of the dismissing panel was fair and one for which they had adequate grounds for belief and in reaching its own conclusions as to the Appellant’s dishonesty failed to deal with substantia ...
|
Unfair Dismissal - Automatically unfair reasons The Appellant employed the Respondent as a hairdresser. Shortly after the Appellant became aware the Respondent was pregnant the Appellant dismissed her. The Respondent asserted, and the Employment Tribunal found, she was dismissed as a result of her pregnancy. The Appellant had asserted that she had dismissed all her staff at the same time and had done so on financial grounds (she was in an IVA). The Employment Tribunal d ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |