Homeworking now a “reasonable adjustment” for disabled lawyers – Legal Futures

‘Employment tribunals may in future need to recognise that homeworking has become an established “reasonable adjustment” to working practices for disabled people, including lawyers, a webinar heard last week.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 9th November 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Is there a different burden of proof in relation to misconduct cases in which there is a possibility that an employee who works with children may pose a danger? No, says the EAT in K v L UKEAT/0014/18/JW – 3PB

‘The Claimant had been employed by the respondents for 20 years as a teacher. On 30th December 2016 the Police entered his property having been granted a warrant to search for and seize computers in the possession of the Claimant. The warrant was based on intelligence that indecent images of a child or children had been downloaded to an IP address associated with the Claimant. The Claimant lived at the address with his son. One of the computers was found to have data that was of interest to the Police.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Is there a different burden of proof in relation to misconduct cases in which there is a possibility that an employee who works with children may pose a danger? No, says the EAT in K v L UKEAT/0014/18/JW – 3PB

‘The Claimant had been employed by the respondents for 20 years as a teacher. On 30th December 2016 the Police entered his property having been granted a warrant to search for and seize computers in the possession of the Claimant. The warrant was based on intelligence that indecent images of a child or children had been downloaded to an IP address associated with the Claimant. The Claimant lived at the address with his son. One of the computers was found to have data that was of interest to the Police.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Does the failure to place a redundant employee on an existing “bank” workers list render a dismissal unfair? – 3PB

Posted October 29th, 2020 in casual workers, employment tribunals, news, redundancy, unfair dismissal by sally

‘It was common ground between the parties that the claimant had been dismissed for a fair reason, namely redundancy. The point of contention arose from the fact that, at point of dismissal, the respondent had in place a list of workers upon whom it would call upon to undertake adhoc work as and when needed.’

Full Story

3PB, 2nd October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Is a philosophical belief in Stoicism a protected belief under section 10 of the Equality Act? Yes it is, says London South Employment Tribunal – 3PB

‘C was dismissed for refusing to apologise for offending his colleagues. C’s position was that he had mixed up his words due to his dyslexia. The offence that he had caused was unintentional. He had refused to apologise, or to apologise sufficiently, for that reason. He asserted that he was being required to communicate in a way that could not be misinterpreted, and that as a Stoic this was something that he could not do.’

Full Story

3PB, 7th October 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Covid: ‘Perfect storm’ causing employment tribunal backlog – BBC News

Posted October 22nd, 2020 in benefits, coronavirus, delay, employment tribunals, mental health, news, redundancy by sally

‘Concerns are being raised over a Covid-related backlog of tribunal cases involving people who believe they have lost their jobs unfairly.’

Full Story

BBC News, 22nd October 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Non-binary/gender fluid claimants – Law Society’s Gazette

‘On 14 September 2020, the employment tribunal ruled that the gender reassignment protections afforded by section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 should be read to include those who identify as non-binary and/or gender fluid.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 12th October 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Muslim man wins UK tribunal case over Cognac raffle switch – The Guardian

‘A Muslim man who worked at a country house hotel has successfully sued his employer for religious harassment after he won a bottle of Cognac in a raffle at a staff party but was given a “cheap” box of chocolates instead.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 24th September 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Judges parachuted in to help employment tribunal backlog – Litigation Futures

Posted September 21st, 2020 in coronavirus, delay, employment, employment tribunals, news by sally

‘Deploying non-employment judges into employment tribunals (ETs) and more remote hearings are part of a package of measures announced by the government yesterday to help the system cope with the high level of demand.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 18th September 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Gender-fluid engineer wins landmark UK discrimination case – The Guardian

‘Judge decides that there is protection for non-binary people under the Equality Act.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 17th September 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Tribunal awards 10 UK homecare workers £10,000 each in back pay – The Guardian

‘Ruling says travel and waiting time between cases should be treated as working time.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 15th September 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Do black lives matter in the employment justice system? – Garden Court Chambers

‘Paper produced by Mukhtiar Singh of the Garden Court Employment and Discrimination Law Team.’

Full Story

Garden Court Chambers, 14th September 2020

Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk

Tribunal upholds award to age discrimination job interview solicitor – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The employment tribunal has declined to change its compensation award made to a solicitor who claimed age discrimination when he was turned down for a job.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 27th August 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Judge rejects challenges to £13k award for age discrimination solicitor – Legal Futures

Posted August 27th, 2020 in age discrimination, damages, employment tribunals, law firms, news, solicitors by sally

‘An employment judge has refused applications from both sides to reconsider his decision to award an experienced property solicitor damages of £13,200 for age discrimination by a law firm.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 27th August 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Former trainee doctor in contempt for online campaign against judge – Legal Futures

‘A former trainee doctor has been found in contempt of court for repeatedly breaching injunctions imposed on him to stop using a website to harass a circuit judge.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 26th August 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Is it an error of law to consider the requirements of s6 EQA in a sequential order? No, says the EAT in Khorochilova v Euro Rep Ltd UKEAT/0266/19/DA – 3PB

‘Following her summary dismissal for gross misconduct, the Claimant brought various claims against her former employer, including a claim of disability discrimination. A preliminary hearing was listed in July 2017 to determine whether she was disabled at the material time. The Claimant identified her disability as ‘Mixed Personality Disorder’, which she said, made her ‘somewhat obsessive’ and a bit of a ‘perfectionist’. She relied upon a report prepared by a Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Schuff, which had been prepared at some point in 2010. Dr Schuff declined to diagnose the Claimant as having a multiple personality disorder but described her as suffering with ‘problematic personality traits’. There was no reference to mixed personality disorder within the Claimant’s GP records until after she was dismissed.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Worker Status Sent Spinning: Case summary of Varnish v British Cycling – 3PB

‘Ms Varnish (the Claimant) is a talented cyclist. She holds world records for track cycling and has won medals at the European Championships, World Cup and Commonwealth Games. She entered into an “Athlete Agreements” with British Cycling (the Respondent). This agreement expressly stated that it was not a contract of employment, that the Respondent would develop an Individual Rider Plan and provide the Claimant with support required, and that the Claimant would, among other things, train to the best of her abilities. The agreement provided for suspension and termination by the Respondent in certain circumstances.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Can a Tribunal use the “but for” test to decide whether a claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability? – 3PB

‘The answer remains, “No”, on the authority of this recent Court of Appeal decision, which has particular relevance for cases where a disabled Claimant complains that a failure to make adjustments for them, in a timely fashion, has caused them undue stress and suffering.’

Full Story

3PB, 3rd August 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Partner fired for ‘topping up’ fees overturns tribunal ruling – Legal Futures

‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a ruling that a law firm was entitled to fire a partner who was accused of “topping up” legal aid fees with cash from a client’s father.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 7th August 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Uber BV v Aslam – Old Square Chambers

‘In this case the drivers argue Uber is a transportation company for whom they provide services as “workers”. Uber disagrees, arguing it is a technology services provider acting as an agent for drivers in their business relationship with passengers. The question for the Court is whether the drivers are “workers” for the purposes of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.54(3)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and reg.2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. If this threshold is passed, a further issue is when the drivers are workers. Possible options include: (1) from the collection of the passenger until the driver reaches the passenger’s destination, (2) from the moment a booking is accepted until the passenger is dropped off, (3) any time when the driver is in the relevant territory with the Uber app switched on. This case is important as it provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41 and the correct approach to when it is permissible to disregard written contractual terms in an employment context.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk