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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

‘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

Third party harassment – 3PB

Posted December 4th, 2019 in employment tribunals, harassment, news, race discrimination, third parties by sally

‘The Respondent (“R”) provides mental health services including a secure, residential unit for men who are the subject of a treatment order under s3 Mental Health Act 1987.’

Full Story

3PB, 4th November 2019

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Judicial Mediation in the Employment Tribunal: How to Make the Most of it – Littleton Chambers

Posted November 26th, 2019 in dispute resolution, employment, employment tribunals, judiciary, news by sally

‘Judicial mediation seems to be something of a Marmite topic among employment practitioners. Some see it as a cost-effective option for settling what might otherwise prove to be long-running and costly litigation. Others see it as a time-consuming and often unsuccessful exercise, conducted by individuals who are employed as judges (not mediators) for a reason.’

Full Story

Littleton Chambers, 25th November 2019

Source: www.littletonchambers.com

Law firm co-founder was not an employee, tribunal rules – Legal Futures

Posted November 22nd, 2019 in barristers, employment tribunals, law firms, news, unfair dismissal by tracey

‘One of the barrister founders of a pioneering legal aid firm in the North-East was not an employee or worker and so cannot bring unfair dismissal and other claims, an employment tribunal has ruled.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 22nd November 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Employers are Liable for the Actions of Manipulators in Automatically Unfair Dismissals – Old Square Chambers

‘The EAT, presided over by the President, has in its judgment in Cadent Gas v Singh, set out four important matters in relation to dismissals for impermissible reasons including whistleblowing.’

Full Story

Old Square Chambers, 14th November 2019

Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk

Boxer’s banker fails in negligence claim against lawyers – Legal Futures

‘A solicitor, his law firm and the barrister they instructed have been granted summary judgment on a negligence claim brought against them by a banker fired for his work with boxer David Haye.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 18th November 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Teacher sacked over gay dating app activity wins £700,000 payout – The Guardian

‘A primary school headteacher who was sacked after having sex with two 17-year-old boys he met through a gay dating app has been awarded nearly £700,000 compensation by a tribunal.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 15th November 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

£500 “not enough” to pay for LiP’s legal advice on settlement – Litigation Futures

Posted November 12th, 2019 in costs, employment tribunals, fees, litigants in person, news, unfair dismissal by sally

‘Employers paying for an employee to speak to a lawyer about settling a dismissal dispute need to stump up significantly more than £500 for proper legal advice, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 12th November 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Secretary “humiliated” by comments on 50th birthday loses claim against law firm – Legal Futures

‘A legal secretary who claimed she felt humiliated and insulted by a colleague commenting on her 50th birthday has lost her claim for harassment and age discrimination against the law firm.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 8th November 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk