Employment Discrimination in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Jones v 3M Healthcare Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 19 Jun 2003

    The preferable approach is to recognise that in each of the relevant statutory provisions the employment relationship is the feature which triggers the employer's obligation not to discriminate in the stated respects. This is the connection between two persons which Parliament has identified as requisite for these purposes. Once triggered, the obligation not to discriminate applies to all the incidents of the employment relationship, whenever precisely they arise.

  • Archibald v Fife Council
    • House of Lords
    • 01 Jul 2004

    Treating men more favourably than women discriminates against women. Treating women more favourably than men discriminates against men. The 1995 Act, however, does not regard the differences between disabled people and others as irrelevant. It expects reasonable adjustments to be made to cater for the special needs of disabled people. It necessarily entails an element of more favourable treatment.

  • Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
    • House of Lords
    • 15 Jul 1999

    Thus, in every case it is necessary to enquire why the complainant received less favourable treatment. Or was it for some other reason, for instance, because the complainant was not so well qualified for the job? Save in obvious cases, answering the crucial question will call for some consideration of the mental processes of the alleged discriminator. Treatment, favourable or unfavourable, is a consequence which follows from a decision.

  • James v Eastleigh Borough Council
    • House of Lords
    • 14 Jun 1990

    This is because, as I see it, cases of direct discrimination under section 1(1)( a) can be considered by asking the simple question: would the complainant have received the same treatment from the defendant but for his or her sex?

  • Glasgow City Council v Zafar (No.2)
    • House of Lords
    • 27 Nov 1997

    If he is not a reasonable employer he might well have treated another employee in just the same unsatisfactory way as he treated the complainant in which case he would not have treated the complainant "less favourably" for the purposes of the Act of 1976. The fact that, for the purposes of the law of unfair dismissal, an employer has acted unreasonably casts no light whatsoever on the question whether he has treated the employee "less favourably" for the purposes of the Act of 1976.

  • Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Jun 1999

    In my judgment both the Employment Tribunal under s56 and the County Court under s57 have jurisdiction to award damages for the tort of racial discrimination including damages for personal injury caused by the tort. The question, which may be a difficult one, is one of causation. It follows that care needs to be taken in any complaint to an Employment Tribunal under this head where the claim includes, or might include, injury to health as well as injury to feelings.

  • King v The Great Britain-China Centre
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 30 Oct 1991

    In the course of the argument we were referred to other recent cases including Barking and Dagenham Council v. Camara [1988] ICR 865; Baker v. Cornwall County Council [1990] ICR 452 and the valuable judgment of Wood J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in British Gas Pic v. Sharma [1991] ICR 19. From these several authorities it is possible, I think, to extract the following principles and guidance:

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT