Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments: The claimant was a flight supervisor when she suffered an accident which rendered her unable to carry out cabin crew duties. She was given administrative duties instead, until the airline was taken over by the respondent in these proceedings. The respondent had a policy of only placing flight staff in administrative roles in instances of pregnancy and the claimant was placed on long term sick leave. There were several meetings betwee ...
|
Age Discrimination: The claimant was aged over 60 and, for the relevant period, was still working full time or near full time. The rules of his pension scheme stated, for the relevant period, that, if he worked full time or nearly full time beyond the age of 60, he could not draw his pension. The claimant argued that this put him at a disadvantage compared to people under the age of 60 because his post 60 remuneration for working full time was less than he would hav ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: The claimant worked as a lifeguard at a sports centre. He had earlier been disciplined for failing to comply with the rules relating to sickness absence, and was warned that any further related act of misconduct could result in dismissal. The incident which resulted in his eventual dismissal concerned him gaining entry to the sports centre with 3 other colleagues without permission, and when he was approached by a security guard he displayed aggressive and abusive be ...
|
Race Discrimination: The claimant was English and worked for a Dutch bank in London as Global Head of Securities Finance and Synthetic Products. His performance was appraised as exceeding expected performance in all core competencies. Following the international banking crisis, the bank looked for savings which included a redundancy programme. It was also decided to move the London Securities Finance Team, which included the claimant, to Utrecht. Several discussions between the claima ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: The claimant had been working in 2 different boroughs, having a day job as a teacher in the London Borough of Brent and a night job in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. She was found to have fraudulently claimed sick pay from Hammersmith and Fulham on several occasions, reporting sick when she was physically attending work at Brent. She was asked by Hammersmith and Fulham to give up one of her jobs, which she did but resumed the dual employment later. The ...
|
Unfair Dismissal Compensation: The claimant was found to have been automatically unfairly dismissed. His compensation was reduced by 20% for contributory fault, and also the Tribunal calculated compensation according to the claimant’s potential earnings limited to a period of 9 months, saying that the employment would have come to an end by then anyway. The Tribunal based their decision on their view of the relationship between the claimant and the respondent, saying that ‘ ...
|
2002 Act and pre-action requirements: The claimant brought a claim of sexual harassment which was dismissed by the ET. The claimant appealed. The EAT focussed on a single issue, which was whether or not a grievance in relation to sexual harassment had been submitted. The claimant argued a new proposition, under regulation 11(3), that the reason why he had not submitted a grievance was because he believed that there would be a significant threat to himself, his property ...
|
Victimisation Discrimination - Protected disclosure: The claimant had been on long term sick leave and on her return, her manager had cause to write to her regarding her poor time keeping. The claimant responded by letter which was written in a tone which was extremely abrupt to the point of rudeness, aggressive and quite extraordinary given that it was written to her line manager. The letter included a sentence which was the subject of the protected disclosure debate: “I will ...
|
Unfair Dismissal: The claimant was dismissed after an investigation following an incident where she had sworn at her line manager and refused to carry out a reasonable instruction. On the assessment of the evidence the Tribunal found that although the claimant did use some well known expletives, there was doubt as to whether or not they were actually directed towards her line manager rather than merely a natural expression of frustration. They consequently found that the dismissal was outs ...
|
Reasonableness of dismissal: The claimant worked as a driver and loader of building rubble. He was dismissed when it was found that he had thrown some debris from the window of a building into his truck instead of carrying it downstairs (called ‘bombing’), injuring a passer by and damaging her property. He did not report the incident, but the injured person did, and the claimant was dismissed following a disciplinary investigation, the respondent concluding that the claima ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |