indirect discrimination
-
Haq & Ors v The Audit Commission [2012] EWCA Civ 1621
Appeal against decision in the EAT that a restructuring exercise involving a department merger and pay protection of a senior grade had not resulted in indirect sex discrimination and was objectively justifiable. Appeal dismissed by a majority.
- cases
09/12/2012 10:02
-
Mather v Devine & Partners (Bramhall Park Medical Centre) UKEAT/0119/12/JOJ
Appeal against a majority finding that the claimant had not been subject to indirect sex discrimination. Appeal allowed and remitted to a fresh Tribunal.
- cases
04/11/2012 11:40
-
Copple v Littlewoods PLC & Ors 2011] EWCA Civ 1281
Appeal arising out of sex discrimination claims relating to pension provision for part-time workers where the claimants were seeking establish that an opt-out principle was a breach of equality for which a remedy must be provided. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
10/11/2011 15:07
-
Transport for London & Anor v Aderemi UKEAT/0006/11/SM
Appeal against findings of direct race discrimination and victimisation. Appeal allowed and remitted to a different tribunal.
- cases
06/11/2011 18:14
-
Ruhaza v Alexander Hancock Recruitment Ltd UKEAT/0337/10/DM
Appeal by claimant against findings that claims for direct and indirect race discrimination were out of time, as any complained of act was not continuous. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
06/11/2011 18:01
-
Audit Commission v Haq & Ors UKEAT/0123/10/LA
Appeal against finding in Equal Pay Act claims that a differential in pay after amalgamation of of posts was indirectly discriminatory and objective justification had not been proved. Appeal allowed.
- cases
18/03/2011 16:53
-
Perth & Kinross Council v Townsley UKEATS/0010/10/BI
Appeal against decision by the ET to extend time for an indirect discrimination claim. Appeal succeeded and the entire claim was time barred and dismissed.
- cases
08/10/2010 11:06
-
Edwards v Swindon Borough Council UKEAT/0095/10/LA
Appeal against ruling that the claimant was not directly or indirectly discriminated against by reason of her race. On the claim of direct discrimination, the ET accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation of why the claimant was not offered a job. As far as the indirect discrimination claim is concerned, the claimant failed to establish provision, criterion or practice in the respondent’s organisation which puts a person of the claimant’s race or ethnicity at a disadvantage. The EAT, although stating that the Employment Tribunal's reasons were not a model to be followed, ruled that the judgment was Meek compliant. The EAT also agreed with the ET on both claims and dismissed the appeal.
- cases
09/07/2010 15:44
-
Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80
Appeal against EAT finding that there had been no indirect discrimination, though if there had it would have been unjustified, arising from a dress code which forbade the appellant from wearing a cross. Appeal dismissed.
- cases
12/02/2010 15:38
