Gender-fluid engineer wins landmark UK discrimination case – The Guardian
‘Judge decides that there is protection for non-binary people under the Equality Act.’
The Guardian, 17th September 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
Category: employment
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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 27th August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Council to pay £1,700+ after London man housed in Birmingham forced to give up job – Local Government Lawyer
‘Merton Council has agreed to pay more than £1,700 in compensation to a man who had to give up one of his jobs because the authority gave him accommodation in Birmingham – leaving him with a three-hour commute.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th August 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
What does the end of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme mean for employers? – Doughty Street Chambers
‘The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the Scheme) is winding down in advance of its complete closure on 31 October 2020. This short article will discuss some of the practical and legal challenges that employers face in bringing workers back to work and how these can be met.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 26th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
Re Debenhams Retail: do the wages of furloughed employees enjoy super priority in an insolvency? – Hardwicke Chambers
‘The Appellants were the Joint Administrators of Debenhams Retail Ltd (“the Company”), which had entered into administration on 9 April 2020. This had followed decisions in late March to place some 14,000 of its employees on furlough under the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“the Scheme”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 11th August 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
UK firms face up to threat of domestic abuse as more staff work from home – The Guardian
‘Companies offering training for staff and support including paid leave and emergency accommodation.’
The Guardian, 13th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
David Lammy: ‘Ex-offenders should have the chance of a clean slate’ – The Guardian
‘There are currently more than 11 million people in the UK with a criminal record. The latest research suggests that nearly three-quarters of ex-offenders are unemployed on release from prison, with 50% of employers saying they would not even consider hiring an ex-offender. This amounts to a second sentence for those who have already served their time, often trapping offenders in a cycle of reoffence. The Ministry of Justice estimates the total economic and social cost of reoffending at £18.1bn per year. The criminal records regime contributes to an extortionately expensive revolving door.’
The Guardian, 13th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
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.’
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.’
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.’
Legal Futures, 7th August 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Coronavirus: ‘Institutional racism left minorities exposed’ – BBC News
‘Institutional racism may have contributed to the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 on ethnic minorities in Wales, a top judge has claimed.’
BBC News, 3rd August 2020
Source: www.bbc.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.’
Old Square Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
Equal Pay, Parental Rights, Personal Beliefs and Protest Movements – a review of recent developments in the areas of sport and employment law – Littleton Chambers
‘Across the board people have been reassessing how the traditional views of what it means to be an “employee” fit within our modern world.’
Littleton Chambers, 21st July 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
High Court provides clarity on third-party access to court documents – OUT-LAW.com
‘The English High Court has refused to give access to court documents on the basis that doing so would not advance the principles of open justice.’
OUT-LAW.com, 28th July 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants: further blurring boundaries in employment status? – by Anna Williams – UK Human Rights Blog
‘In a judgment handed down on 1 April 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of Nicola Davies J (as she then was) and a unanimous Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal on the ground that no vicarious liability can lie for the acts of an independent contractor: Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants (“Barclays”).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Unfit for work? Fair trial rights means benefit pending review – Doughty Street Chambers
‘Mr Connor, a litigant in person, yesterday persuaded the High Court to strike down a benefit review rule as a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 25th July 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
What is redundancy, who can be made redundant and what are my rights? – BBC News
‘Job losses are climbing as businesses feel the financial effects of the coronavirus crisis.
What are your rights if you are made redundant?’
BBC News, 24th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Whistleblowers’ lawyers “fear retaliation” over NDAs – Legal Futures
‘Lawyers acting for whistleblowers have told MPs and peers that they can feel intimidated to raise concerns over non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) because of the threat of retaliation.’
Legal Futures, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
