‘A law firm did not discriminate against a legal secretary turned apprentice with menopausal symptoms on the grounds of disability or sex, an employment tribunal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 6th April 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘An accountant who acted as a law firm’s part-time finance director through a company was a worker and not self-employed, even though he had another client, an employment tribunal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 29th March 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Care workers who “sleep-in” are not entitled to the national minimum wage when they are in bed, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Law Society's Gazette, 19th March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The investigator helping coordinate the official inquiry into the Metropolitan police’s handling of the Sarah Everard vigil and concerns over women’s safety is suing the Home Office for sex discrimination over claims that he has been penalised for being a “white man”, the Observer can reveal.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An employer’s compulsory retirement scheme requires the dismissal of an employee for no other reason than the employee has attained a specified retirement age. The retirement age may be fixed in the terms of the contract of employment, a staff handbook, a collective agreement, or other regulations that determine the rules governing a particular retirement age. Although compulsory retirement used to be lawful, since 2011 the position in the United Kingdom (UK) is that an employee dismissed in accordance with an employer’s policy of a compulsory retirement age can bring a claim either for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or (for workers as well as employees) for age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Following Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16, an employer can justify the age discrimination of a compulsory retirement age as a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim, such as preserving the promotion prospects of younger staff or the avoidance of intrusive surveillance of the job performance of older staff.’
UK Labour Law Blog, 17th March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘Gig economy companies, including Uber and Deliveroo, have faced at least 40 major legal challenges around the world as delivery drivers and riders try to improve their rights.’
The Guardian, 17th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Multiple claims in the employment tribunal nearly doubled towards the end of 2020 as the effects of the pandemic took effect. Statistics published this week by the Ministry of Justice show 29,000 claims were made by more than one person based on the same set of facts in the final three months of last year. This is 82% up on the same period in 2019.’
Law Society's Gazette, 12th March 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In McTear & Mitie v Amey & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the controversial decision of the CJEU in Govaerts applies in domestic law – including to Service Provision Changes (‘SPCs’) under TUPE. This means that the contract of employment of a given employee who transfers pursuant to a SPC may as a matter of law be split between multiple transferees.’
Cloisters, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Are Uber drivers ‘limb (b) workers’ and so entitled to fundamental statutory rights such as the minimum wage and working time protections? In a decision of fundamental significance, six Justices of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) upheld the original Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that the drivers were ‘limb (b) workers. In reaching this conclusion, the UKSC endorsed the ‘purposive’ approach that had been set down in the earlier case of Autoclenz v Belcher by Lord Clarke.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘A magistrate and NHS trust board member who was dismissed over his views – based on his beliefs as a Christian – about the appropriateness of the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple, has lost two cases in the Court of Appeal.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The government has asked the Low Pay Commission to review a rule exempting live-in domestic workers from minimum wage regulations. It comes after an employment tribunal in December found that the exemption was discriminatory against women. The tribunal heard extensive evidence that women are far more likely to be employed as family workers than men.’
The Guardian, 7th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘On 19 February 2021 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the long running dispute between Uber and its drivers.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 26th February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘As anticipated the start of 2021 has shown an increase in COVID-19 related claims being heard at employment tribunals. What type of claims have been heard so far and what should we expect to see more of?’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 1st March 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘On 15 December 2020, the London South Employment Tribunal gave its judgment in a claim brought by a domestic worker, Ms Kamalammal P K Puthenveettil, challenging her exemption from payment of the national minimum wage on the basis of the “family worker” exemption. The Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) accepted the Claimant’s argument that this exemption, stemming from the “family worker” exemption, was unlawful and indirectly discriminatory on the basis of sex. This exemption has meant that some live-in domestic workers – part of an overwhelmingly female and largely ethnic minority and / or migrant workforce – have been at worst denied payment of the national minimum wage (‘NMW’), and in other cases lacked clarity about their entitlement to this very basic right. After outlining the background to Puthenveettil, this post will explain the family worker exemption and its (mis-)application to some live-in domestic workers. It will then analyse the judgment in Puthenveettil, its significance in questioning the devaluation of domestic work, and the limitations of the legal framework for domestic workers in the UK.’
UK Labour Law, 1st March 2021
Source: uklabourlawblog.com
‘Tens of thousands of Uber drivers could be entitled to £12,000 in compensation, lawyers said today after the Supreme Court ruled they should be classed as workers.’
Litigation futures, 19th February 2021
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently prescribed annual booster / refresher training for employers on Equality and Diversity in order to ensure that it is effective in eliminating harassment in the workplace.’
Pump Court Chambers, 17th February 2021
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘An actor who sued a theatre and her former agents after she was sacked when a Facebook post resurfaced has had her claim for religious discrimination, harassment and breach of contract rejected at an employment tribunal.’
The Guardian, 17th February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘2020 saw the Employment Tribunal and higher courts give out fewer judgments due to the pandemic. However, all was not lost and there were still some key judgments shaping the employment sphere and that will no doubt be of interest to lawyers and HR professionals alike.’
St John's Buildings, 8th February 2021
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘Employment tribunals were intended when first introduced in 1963 to be easily accessible, simple, and straightforward but have gradually taken on more of the appearance of courts. There was a somewhat naive belief in the beginning that justice in such tribunals could be achieved without the parties needing lawyers. The presiding officer was called a chair but is now a judge. And tribunals of course now deal with cases of great complexity, recondite legal areas and with millions at stake. A continuing fundamental difference from a court, however, is that the tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction but only what the dizzying array of statutes provide them.’
Littleton Chambers, 5th February 2021
Source: littletonchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025