Sexual Orientation Discrimination/Transexualism An Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 complaints of discrimination, and 5 out of 12 of unlawful harassment, were made out. None of the acts complained of, save possibly one, was obviously and intrinsically discriminatory. Each finding relied on the validity of the others. The first and second in the sequence involved accepting that the Claimant had suffered less favourable treatment, to his detriment, where his manager had ...
|
Disability Discrimination - Disability Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time (June 2008) Claimant not suffering from “clinical depression” amounting to a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Appeal allowed, and issue remitted, because Tribunal had wrongly declined to give weight to the evidence of Claimant’s GP, ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal The Tribunal ought to have convened a hearing in order to determine the Claimant’s application for relief against sanctions – rules 35(3) and 36(1) and St Albans Girls’ School Governing Body v Neary [2009] EWCA Civ 1190 discussed. In any event fairness required that the Tribunal convene a hearing before making a critical finding of fact adverse to the Claimant. In any event the Tribunal’s reasons for that criti ...
|
Disability Discrimination - Direct disability discrimination The Employment Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s contention that the reason for his treatment by the Respondent of which he complained was a perception that he had a dangerous mental illness. Any argument that action taken on grounds of a perception of mental illness is for a reason relating to or on grounds of disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1975 is therefore academic in this appeal. In any ev ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Striking-out/dismissal This is an appeal by the Claimant against a judgment confirming that her claim was struck out by reason of non-compliance with an “unless order”. Appeal dismissed. There was no error of law in making the order. The Claimant’s contention that the effect of applying to vary or discharge an “unless order” is to comply with the order is incorrect. Various other grounds of appeal reject ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Case Management With one exception, the orders respectively dismissing and striking out the Claimant’s numerous claims were correct. The issue relating to his PIDA claim cannot be resolved without further reasons of the Employment Judge and will go to a full hearing.
|
Contract of Employment - Sick pay and holiday pay In this case the Employment Tribunal Chairman did not appreciate that the House of Lords have given the judgment in Stringer v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2009] ICR 932 and therefore matters need now to be reconsidered in the light of that decision.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Claim in time and effective date of termination In this case on the 29 August 2008 the Appellant wrote what can only be described as a conditional resignation letter. His employer in reply pointed out that they could not action a conditional resignation and asked the Claimant to indicate whether he was or was not resigning. The Appellant emailed on 3 September making it clear he was resigning and saying his resignation was effective from the 29 August 2008.& ...
|
Employment Agencies Act 1973 This is an appeal from the refusal of the Employment Tribunal to make an order prohibiting the Respondents from being engaged with running an employment agency. The Employment Tribunal decision was, in the EAT’s view, so flawed in its logic that we remitted the case to another Employment Tribunal.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal In the course of investigation into three disciplinary matters, for which a health care professional was given a final warning, other matters came to light. The Claimant did not challenge the evidence and consented to all the matters being considered together, which resulted in her dismissal. The Employment Tribunal did not err in finding dismissal was a reasonable response to the Claimant’s conduct in putting patients at risk.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |