By Daniel Gorry on 28/06/2007 00:00
Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof
The Appellant sought to appeal against 3 case management orders made in the course of protracted litigation between her and her ex-employers in which she claims unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and breach of contract. At the core of her claim is the complaint that, after she transitioned to a female role and then underwent gender reassignment surgery, the Respondents ceased to allocated her to jobs as they had done before and dismissed her for sham redundancy. The Court of Appeal held that t ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 27/06/2007 00:00
Appeal against findings of sex, race and victimisation discrimination. The EAT held that there was a firm evidential basis for the findings of sex and victimisation discrimination, but that the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the question of race discrimination. Since there was no evidence which could possibly justify that inference referred to in the decision, the EAT substituted a finding that there had been no such discrimination.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 26/06/2007 00:00
Appeals against interim Judgments of Employment Tribunals were dismissed when the Employment Tribunal subsequently struck out the Claimant’s case and the EAT refused to allow an appeal against it. In a separate appeal, it was an abuse of the process of the EAT to consider an appeal relating to a stay, when the condition relating to the stay had been discharged.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 21/06/2007 00:00
Employment Tribunal Chairman not entitled to issue a certificate of correction to add a new finding to the decision. The Employment Tribunal was irrational in failing, in the light of its findings of fact on one issue, to find a prima facie case of unequal treatment on grounds of sex or victimisation in relation to that specific issue.
|
By Euan Dow on 17/06/2007 23:00
Practice and Procedure - Application/Claim
The Claimant’s ET1, presented during his employment, made reference to numerous complaints but did not identify sex discrimination as one of them. He had presented a formal grievance in which he had made no reference to sex discrimination. He raised the possibility of a sex discrimination case for the first time a day or so before the pre-hearing review, which decided that he had not made such a complaint and had not sought leave to amend to make it. Held (1) he had not made such a complaint (2 ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/06/2007 00:00
Appeal – Perversity challenge on finding important for remedy. Cross-Appeal – Did ET misdirect itself on burden of proof on victimisation claim.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 13/06/2007 00:00
This case addressed the calculation of the compensatory award for a constructively dismissed employee who had gone off sick. Was the loss of earnings caused by the constructive dismissal or by the long term sickness of the employee? Distinction made between an actual dismissal where loss of earnings might not be awarded, and a constructive dismissal that covered a whole series of events that contributed to the sickness in the first place.
|
By Euan Dow on 06/06/2007 23:00
The employee lodged a claim for unfair dismissal outside the statutory three month time limit. The Chairman held that when the normal time limit expired, the employee had reasonable grounds to believe that a dismissal procedure was being followed and therefore the claim was in time pursuant to reg. 15 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Procedures 2004. The EAT held that in reaching that conclusion she had misdirected herself. Case remitted to a fresh tribunal.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 05/06/2007 00:00
Whether, following a successful appeal to the EAT leading to remission of an issue to a fresh ET for rehearing, the new ET is bound by findings of fact made by the original ET. Answer: No.
|
By Daniel Gorry on 30/05/2007 00:00
A employed R as night manager at his hotel. R was a Nigerian but had permission to work in the UK. A paid R less than the minimum wage on the basis that he was vulnerable. When R sought to obtain a NI number A first tried to discourage him and then dismissed him. Was the ET entitled to find race discrimination and (if so) was it entitled to make the awards it did?
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |