Category: employment tribunals

Be Careful What You Tweet For (part 2) – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted January 27th, 2020 in contract of employment, employment, employment tribunals, equality, freedom of expression, gender, human rights, internet, news, transgender persons, women by sally

‘The Claimant’s belief in Forstater – that “sex is biologically immutable” — denied trans people their legal right to be recognised as the sex they had transitioned to even when they had obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate. This right has been recognised for over a decade by the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) and by domestic law in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The Claimant’s belief — in the words of Judge Tayler — also violated the dignity of trans people and created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” for them.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 24th January 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Be Careful What You Tweet For (part 1) – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted January 24th, 2020 in contract of employment, employment, employment tribunals, equality, freedom of expression, gender, human rights, internet, news, sex discrimination, transgender persons, women by sally

‘Forstater v CGD Europe & Others [2019] UKET 2200909/2019. Last month, the Central London Employment Tribunal held that a woman’s belief that “sex is biologically immutable” was not protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd January 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Labour MP accused of sexual assault fails in anonymity bid – The Guardian

Posted January 23rd, 2020 in anonymity, employment tribunals, harassment, news, reporting restrictions, sexual offences by sally

‘A Labour MP has failed in his bid to stop his name from being revealed in reporting of an upcoming employment tribunal case taken by a woman who has accused him of sexual assault and harassment.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 22nd January 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Gareth Price reviews the need for a detriment to take place within the “employment field”. – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted January 17th, 2020 in appeals, disclosure, employment, employment tribunals, news, unfair dismissal by sally

‘The Court of Appeal has considered an interesting argument regarding an employee who, ostensibly, made protected disclosures and allegedly suffered detriments as a result – but may not have done so within the ‘employment field’; Tiplady v. City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2019] EWCA Civ 2180.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden Chambers, 14th January 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Ethical Veganism as a Protected Characteristic – St John’s Building

Posted January 17th, 2020 in appeals, disclosure, employment, employment tribunals, equality, interpretation, news, statutory interpretation, unfair dismissal, veganism by sally

‘An employment tribunal has ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief that is protected by law against discrimination. In Jordi Casamitjana v the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) JC complains of unfair dismissal having raised concerns with colleagues that its pension fund invested in companies involved in animal testing. The charity did not contest that ethical veganism should be protected but will argue at trial that JC was dismissed for gross misconduct.’

Full Story

St John's Buildings, 9th January 2020

Source: stjohnsbuildings.com

Weightmans entitled to fire worker over internet browsing, tribunal rules – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted January 17th, 2020 in disciplinary procedures, employment, employment tribunals, internet, news, professional conduct, unfair dismissal by sally

‘National firm Weightmans acted within the law to sack a long-serving staff member over her internet usage whilst at work, an employment tribunal has found.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 17th January 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Strike out decision sent back over judge’s ‘lack of adequate reasoning’ – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted January 16th, 2020 in employment tribunals, news, reasons, striking out by sally

‘An employment tribunal has been ordered to look again at whether a claim against a law firm should continue, after the judge’s initial decision was found to be inadequately explained.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 15th January 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Case Law Update – ethical veganism protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 – Parklane Plowden

Posted January 15th, 2020 in employment, employment tribunals, equality, human rights, news, unfair dismissal, veganism by sally

‘Last week the long-awaited decision in the case of Casamitjana v League Against Cruel Sports was finally handed down by Employment Judge Postle in Norwich Employment Tribunal. The case had been listed for a Preliminary Hearing to determine whether ethical veganism constitutes a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act 2010 does not provide express protection for ethical vegans, albeit that veganism is a philosophy which falls within the ambit of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden, 10th January 2020

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Protection for a philosophical belief: why some beliefs but not others? – The 36 Group

Posted January 15th, 2020 in employment, employment tribunals, equality, human rights, interpretation, news, veganism by sally

‘Fergus McCombie employment law expert at 36 Commercial comments on recent tribunal decision.’

Full Story

The 36 Group, 9th January 2020

Source: 36group.co.uk

Sikhs, beards and “hygiene”: Sethi – Law & Religion UK

Posted January 15th, 2020 in codes of practice, employment, employment tribunals, health & safety, interpretation, news, religious discrimination, Sikhism by sally

‘In Mr R Sethi v Elements Personnel Services Ltd [2019] ET 2300234/2018, the Claimant, a practising but unbaptised Sikh, applied for a job with the Respondent: a specialist agency providing temporary staff for the hospitality industry, mainly at five-star hotels. He attended an induction course at which he was asked to sign various documents including the Respondent’s standard Contract for Agency Workers, which included the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. The Code provided, înter alia, that “No beards or goatees are allowed”. He explained that he would not be able to shave off his beard for religious reasons.’

Full Story

Law & Religion UK, 15th January 2020

Source: www.lawandreligionuk.com

Liz Earle beauty firm ordered to pay £17k to sacked pregnant worker – BBC News

Posted January 10th, 2020 in compensation, employment, employment tribunals, equality, news, pregnancy, redundancy, time limits by sally

‘A woman who was sacked by a beauty company when she was eight months pregnant has been awarded more than £17,000 by an employment tribunal.’

Full Story

BBC News, 10th January 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Is the prejudice of an investigating manager relevant to determining the propriety of a dismissal, even if the decision makers are not aware of and do not share that prejudice? – 12 King’s

Posted January 9th, 2020 in bias, disciplinary procedures, employment tribunals, news, trade unions, unfair dismissal by sally

‘In Cadent Gas Ltd v Singh [2019] UKEAT 0024/19/0810, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered whether the personal animus of a manager who had been heavily involved in a disciplinary investigation had tainted the dismissal process as a whole, even though the dismissing managers had not shared that animus. Furthermore, the EAT considered whether that manager’s prejudice towards the Claimant, informed by his trade union activities, could be attributed to the employer.’

Full Story

12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd January 2020

Source: www.12kbw.co.uk

Tribunal overturns unfair dismissal ruling against partner – Legal Futures

Posted January 8th, 2020 in disciplinary procedures, employment tribunals, law firms, news, pregnancy, solicitors, unfair dismissal by sally

‘An employment tribunal has ruled that it was wrong to uphold an unfair dismissal claim against a partner in a law firm closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 8th January 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Ethical veganism is a protected belief, rules Employment Tribunal – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted January 6th, 2020 in disciplinary procedures, disclosure, employment, employment tribunals, equality, harassment, human rights, news, pensions, professional conduct, unfair dismissal, veganism by sally

‘In what multiple commentators have hailed as a landmark legal case, Norwich Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant’s “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic for the purposes of section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 (“s.10”) following a preliminary hearing on 2nd and 3rd January 2020.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 4th January 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules – BBC News

Posted January 6th, 2020 in disciplinary procedures, disclosure, employment, employment tribunals, equality, human rights, news, pensions, professional conduct, unfair dismissal, veganism by sally

‘Ethical veganism is a “philosophical belief” and so is protected in law, a tribunal has ruled for the first time.’

Full Story

BBC News, 3rd January 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Researcher who lost job for tweeting ‘men cannot change into women’ loses employment tribunal – The Independent

Posted December 20th, 2019 in disciplinary procedures, employment, employment tribunals, equality, freedom of expression, gender, internet, news, transgender persons, unfair dismissal, women by sally

‘A researcher who lost her job after tweeting that men cannot change their biological sex has lost an employment tribunal after her opinions were ruled “absolutist”.’

Full Story

The Independent, 19th December 2019

Source: www.independent.co.uk

s.103A and concealed reasons; Royal Mail v. Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 – Parklane Plowden Chambers

Posted December 10th, 2019 in disciplinary procedures, employment tribunals, news, reasons, Supreme Court, unfair dismissal, whistleblowers by sally

‘The Supreme Court has confirmed that a Tribunal may find that the reason for the dismissal is something other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker – even where that reason is genuinely held by the decision maker; Royal Mail Group Ltd v. Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 (“Jhuti”).’

Full Story

Parklane Plowden, 9th December 2019

Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk

Automatic Unfair Dismissal: Can the reason for the dismissal be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker? – Pallant Chambers

Posted December 10th, 2019 in disciplinary procedures, employment tribunals, news, reasons, Supreme Court, unfair dismissal, whistleblowers by sally

‘The question for the Supreme Court in Royal Mail Group Limited v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal can the reason for the dismissal be other than that given to the employee by the decision-maker?’

Full Story

Pallant Chambers, 5th December 2019

Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk

Covert recording in a PI claim: ramifications for Employment Tribunals? – 3PB

Posted December 4th, 2019 in admissibility, audio recordings, civil procedure rules, employment tribunals, evidence, expert witnesses, news, personal injuries by sally

‘On 21 January 2014, a road traffic accident took place in Milton Keynes (liability having been conceded). The Claimant’s (hereinafter referred to as “C”) Honda Jazz was struck from behind by a Fiat Punto; there are 3 defendants (referred to collectively as “D”).’

Full Story

3PB, 4th November 2019

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

The Reason Behind the Reason Behind the Decision to Dismiss – Littleton Chambers

Posted December 4th, 2019 in disciplinary procedures, employment tribunals, news, reasons, Supreme Court, unfair dismissal, whistleblowers by sally

‘The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in Royal Mail Group Ltd -v- Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 and has held unanimously that when deciding what was the reason for dismissal in unfair dismissal, it may not be enough simply to consider what was subjectively in the mind of the decision-maker. In a unanimous decision delivered by Lord Wilson (Lady Hale (President), Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge and Lady Arden concurring) the Supreme Court has held that where the real reason is hidden from the decision-maker behind an invented reason, the court must penetrate through the invention and decide upon the basis of the real reason [paragraphs 60-62 of the Judgment]. ‘

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 27th November 2019

Source: www.littletonchambers.com