CASE NO.2405428/16

Direct discrimination cannot be justified. House of Lords in Ahsan v Watt (formerly Carter)

S. 112 of Equality Act2010. It is unlawful to knowingly help someone to discriminate against, harass or victimise another person or to knowingly help to instruct, cause or induce discrimination.

In Anyanwu and another v South Bank Syudent’s Union and University[2001]IRLR305ITL

House of Lords held that a person aids another if the person helps or assists or cooperates or collaborates with him or her.

Being subject to a detriment was interpreted as meaning put at a disadvantage in Jeremiah v Ministry of Defence[1979]IRLR436CA

No physical or economic consequence is necessary in Shamoon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire EAT/0499/07

S.39(2)(d)Equality Act2010 the requirement not to subject employee to detriment.

In Scott v London Borough of Hillington[2001]EWCACiv2005CA

Knowledge of the protected act by those committing the alleged act of victimisation is a precondition to a finding of victimisation.

In Nagarajan v London Regional Transport[1999]IRLR572HL House of Lords held that the motivation of the person committing an act of direct race discrimination may be conscious or unconscious.

In Alam v London Probation Trust EAT/0199/14

What is required is not that the treatment is solely because of a protected characteristic but that the protected characteristic is an ‘effective cause’ of the treatment.

In Law Society v Bahl[2003]IRLR640

The discriminatory reason for the conduct need not to be the sole or even the principal reason of the discrimination. It is enough that it is a contributing cause in the sense of a ‘significant influence’

In Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd. and others[2000]IRLR74

Even though the remarks made are the same , their effect as between women and men is likely to be different since women are more likely than men to find such remarks intimidating.

In B and another v A[2010]IRLR400EAT

Tribunals must be alive to the fact that stereotypical views of male and female behaviour exist.

In Strathclyde Regional Council v Porcelli[1986]IRLR134CS

EAT held that the treatment included treatment of a sexual nature to which a woman was vulnerable, but a man would not have been. What mattered was the treatment, not the motive behind it.

In Waltons and Morse v Darrington [1997]IRLR488EAT

There is an implied term in every contract of employment that the employer will provide a working environment that is reasonably suitable for the performance by an employee of his or her contractual duties.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: