‘A refuse collector has lost his claim for disability discrimination against Bristol Waste, a wholly-owned operation of Bristol City Council.’
Local Government Lawyer, 20th February 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The claimant was employed by the respondent from 1994 until November 2014 as a Probation Service Officer (“PSO”). In 2014 there was an incident at the claimant’s home involving the claimant, her then partner, and her daughter, who was then a teenager. It was alleged that the claimant had been violent towards her daughter, something she had always vehemently denied. Social Services became involved and her daughter was placed on the Child Protection Register (“CPR”).’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The Claimant, Mr Casamitjana, was dismissed from his role at the League Against Cruel Sports in April 2018 after disclosing to colleagues that the company’s pension funds were being invested ‘unethically’. This was considered by the Respondent to be contrary to a management instruction not to provide financial advice to his colleagues. The Claimant brought claims of indirect discrimination, direct discrimination/harassment and victimisation by reference to his belief in ethical veganism, and PIDA detriment and dismissal, and wrongful dismissal.’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Do the principles set down by the Supreme Court decision in the landmark decision in Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti (in which Simon Gorton QC and Jack Mitchell acted for the Royal Mail) apply to the assessment of whether an employer acted reasonably in dismissing an employee for the purposes of s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996?’
Old Square Chambers, 17th February 2020
Source: www.oldsquare.co.uk
‘There are a number of ways in which this judgment opens the door to arguments about its wider impact.’
UKSC Blog, 17th February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘If an employee is dismissed on bogus grounds invented by someone more senior than her in the business, that person’s true reason for acting as they did will be the real reason for the dismissal, even if the decision to dismiss was made by another person acting in good faith in reliance on the bogus grounds.’
UKSC Blog, 17th February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal recently considered whether a probation service officer who failed to disclose a child protection issue was fairly dismissed. Ceri Fuller, Zoë Wigan and Hilary Larter analyse the outcome.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th February 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The High Court has struck out a claim by a litigant-in-person (LiP) who responded to the failure of her employment tribunal case by launching an “indiscriminate attack” against legal expenses insurers and regulators.’
Litigation Futures, 30th January 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Q v Secretary of State for Justice UKEAT/0120/19 was a recent case in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal looked at the application of the Article 8 in a conduct dismissal case.’
Pallant Chambers, 23rd January 2020
Source: www.pallantchambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 14th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘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.’
St John's Buildings, 9th January 2020
Source: stjohnsbuildings.com
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th January 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Parklane Plowden, 10th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘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.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd January 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘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).’
Legal Futures, 8th January 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th January 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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
‘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
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2023