Is it safe to dismiss an employee who is receiving long-term disability benefits?
The EAT has dealt a blow to employers, confirming that the purpose of permanent health insurance and similar schemes would […]
Discrimination
Context is key in claims of harassment
In the recent case of Evans v. Xactly Corporation Limited the EAT considered whether calling an employee a “fat ginger […]
Government to propose mandatory ethnic pay gap reporting
As UK companies with more than 250 employees are now required to publish gender pay gap information, the government has turned its attention to the ethnicity pay gap.
Sex discrimination case flushed out of the Tribunal system with a £25,000 settlement
A female council worker has settled her sex discrimination claim for £25,000. She was instructed to go to a different office, ahead of an inspector's visit, to clean the kitchen and the toilets. She was told the toilets "needed a woman's touch" despite the fact that cleaning was not within her job description.
"Pitiful" and "patronising" – the excuses given for the lack of female presence in FTSE boardrooms
The Hampton-Alexander Review, an independent review backed by the government to scrutinise the gender balance of boards at the top of the country's leading companies, released a report this week which lists some of the excuses given by companies for a lack of female representation on their boards.
EHRC gender pay gap investigations
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the Government informing it that in June it will be commencing the first of its gender pay gap investigations into employers who have failed to comply with their gender pay gap (GPG) reporting obligations. The announcement should not come as a surprise as the EHRC issued a warning prior to 4 April 2018 deadline that any companies which failed to comply with their reporting obligations could face enforcement action in the form of a fine or an investigation.
No requirement to enhance pay for shared parental leave
We blogged in June last year about the employment tribunal claim of Ali -v- Capita Customer Management Ltd where Mr Ali was successful in his claim for direct sex discrimination. Female employees at Capita were entitled to 14 weeks’ full pay on maternity leave whereas fathers were only entitled to two weeks’ full pay on paternity and shared parental leave. Mr Ali's wife was advised to return to work early from maternity leave after being diagnosed with post natal depression. Mr Ali asked Capita whether he could take leave instead and was told he could take shared parental leave on statutory pay. The Tribunal found that this was direct sex discrimination.
The gender pay gap reporting deadline has now passed – so what have we learned?
The deadline passed at midnight last night for private businesses with more than 250 employees to publish their gender pay […]
Vento bands increase announced
The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England & Wales and Scotland have issued new guidance updating the bands of […]
Disability – what do you know?
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Donelien v. Liberata UK Ltd (see here) and provided reassurance to employers that they can rely on occupation health advisers in deciding the question of disability. However, this is subject to employers making their own enquiries also.
Greek government's imposition of height restrictions on its police force falls short of equal treatment
In the recent case of Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton v. Kalliri, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the requirement for candidates for the Greek police academy to be at least 170cm tall amounted to indirect sex discrimination which could not be objectively justified.
Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity
In the recent case of Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Anor the Supreme Court agreed with the EAT and the Court of Appeal and unanimously held that sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA) cannot protect embassies from Employment Tribunal claims brought by domestic staff in the UK.