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.’
BBC News, 3rd January 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: unfair dismissal
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”.’
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”).’
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?’
Pallant Chambers, 5th December 2019
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
Law firm wrong to make solicitor pay for training course – Legal Futures
‘A law firm made an unlawful deduction of wages when it took £1,700 from the salary of a sacked solicitor turned office manager to cover the cost of a training course, an employment judge has ruled.’
Legal Futures, December 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.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]. ‘
Littleton Chambers, 27th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
New Judgment: Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 – UKSC Blog
‘The appeal concerned the dismissal of Ms Jhuti from her employment by Royal Mail Group Ltd. The key question of law that it raised was whether in a claim for unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the reason for the dismissal can be other than that given to the employee by the employer’s appointed decision-maker.’
UKSC Blog, 27th November 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
Legal Advice Privilege and Dismissal – Littleton Chambers
‘Two recent cases have cast light on the issue of legal professional privilege in employment disputes.’
Littleton Chambers, 12th November 2019
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
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.’
Old Square Chambers, 14th November 2019
Source: www.oldsquare.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.’
The Guardian, 15th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
£500 “not enough” to pay for LiP’s legal advice on settlement – Litigation Futures
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 12th November 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
A security officer based at BBC New Broadcasting House has won an unfair dismissal claim against his employer, Interserve – Garden Court Chambers
‘A security officer based at BBC New Broadcasting House has won his unfair dismissal claim against his employer, Interserve.’
Garden Court Chambers, 21st October 2019
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
In-house lawyer cannot rely on leaked email for discrimination claim – Legal Futures
‘A former senior in-house lawyer at Shell cannot rely on a leaked internal email or an overheard pub conversation in his discrimination claim against the company, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 23rd October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Redacting solicitor’s comments to client was “cherry picking” – Litigation Futures
‘Redacting comments made by a company’s lawyer on a draft dismissal letter while disclosing other privileged documents was “impermissible cherry picking”, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 15th October 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Tribunal rejects claims from ‘partner’ who sued as employee – Legal Futures
‘A former salaried partner, permitted by an employment tribunal earlier this year to sue her law firm as an employee, has lost all but one of her claims.’
Legal Futures, 9th October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Christian doctor who refused to call transgender woman ‘she’ loses employment tribunal – The Independent
‘A doctor who refused to call a transgender woman “she” because of his Christian faith has lost his employment tribunal.’
The Independent, 3rd October 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
SRA “wrong” to sanction solicitor for nanny discrimination – Legal Futures
‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was wrong to sanction a senior finance partner at City giant Hogan Lovells for discriminating against his children’s pregnant nanny, a leading regulatory QC has said.’
Legal Futures, 1st October 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Hogan Lovells partner rebuked over pregnancy discrimination – Legal Futures
‘A senior finance partner at City giant Hogan Lovells has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after a tribunal found that he discriminated against his children’s pregnant nanny.’
Legal Futures, 29th August 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
