Articles

Thanks to those who were able to attend our recent event at Funky Buddha. The evening was a success and enjoyed by all. We look forward to putting on another social event in 2010.

 

 

 

The Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of the EAT in this case and decided that where an employee is dismissed for discriminatory reasons and then as a result of having brought a discrimination claim against his previous employer  suffers a stigma when searching for a new  employment, he is entitled to be compensated for that stigma loss by that employer i.e. the likelihood is that the loss will be more substantial because of the stigma.  However, such a claim will not ordinarily need to be considered as a separate head of damage but it will simply be a factor to be considered when assessing how long the employee will take to obtain new employment.

 

A volunteer worker is not entitled by the DDA to claim disability discrimination. The Government is not in breach of the Framework Directive in this regard, and s4(2)(d) and s68 of the DDA do not fall to be read down or rewritten so as to extend protection to voluntary workers without a contract. 

 

The claimant, who had less than one year’s continuous employment fell out with his fellow directors and shareholders. He was removed as a director. His solicitors wrote on his behalf stating that they had given advice to their client as a shareholder, director and employee. The Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the letter contained a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 Section 43. Section 43L(3) the ERA recognises a distinction between an allegation and information. What is key is the revelation of facts not purely allegations. The claimant solicitor’s letter set out a statement of position in the context of known difficulties between the parties. The letter did not, therefore, contain a protected disclosure within the meaning of the ERA. Accordingly the Employment Tribunal erred in holding that the Claimant could bring a claim for unfair dismissal although he had less than one year’s qualifying employment and that his dismissal because of the letter was automatically unfair. The decision of the Employment Tribunal was set aside.

 

The claimant claimed that his relative youth had counted against him in applying for jobs. However, the prospects of him proving a prima facie case of age discrimination were fanciful in circumstances where the successful candidate was only seven years older than him. It was implausible that the employer would have been influenced by one candidate being aged 41 and another candidate being 48. Accordingly, the decision to strike out the claim at a PHR was upheld.

 

A potentially indirectly discriminatory measure may be capable of being justified on ordinary principles i.e. proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim but the fact that the measure was agreed with the relevant trades unions is only one factor and is not determinative.

 

 

Jonathan Walters,

Head of Civitas Law Employment Group