In the June edition of our Employment Briefing, we reported on the Equality Act 2010.
In the recent case of Kraft Foods v Hastie the EAT held that a cap on how much employees could receive under a contractual redundancy scheme was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and therefore did not amount to a contravention of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The 20092010 Annual Statistics for the Tribunals Service were published at the end of last month.
Although there has been much uncertainty about the future of the Equality Act following the recent election, the Government Equalities Office has announced that the Government is currently considering how the different provisions of the Act will be commenced so that the Act is implemented in an "effective and proportionate way".
In the recent case of Taylor v XLN Telecom Ltd the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled to recover for injury to feelings and personal injury attributable to dismissal even though the Claimant had not previously attributed such injury to knowledge of discrimination.
In May & Baker Ltd ta Sanofi-Aventis Pharma v Okerago the EAT overturned the Tribunal's decision that an employer was liable for discrimination by an agency worker.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that an employer’s well-intentioned motives are not relevant to the issue of whether there has been unlawful direct discrimination.
In a recent decision the Court of Appeal held that, although using length of service as a criterion to select employees for redundancy does constitute indirect age discrimination within the terms of Regulation 3 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, it can be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The Court of Appeal recently heard a case where a former employee complained that the employer's failure to pay up after it lost a claim of race discrimination (and unfair dismissal) was itself an act of discrimination - specifically, victimisation.
The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has recently held that national rules establishing compulsory retirement provisions do fall within the ambit of the Equal Treatment Directive.