Discrimination

Individual managers can be personally liable for a corporate employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments.

A major retailer did not breach equal pay law when paying its shop floor staff (predominantly women) a lower rate of basic pay than its warehouse staff (in the majority men). The employer could justifiably rely on market forces to distinguish between the pay for the different groups where there was a valid explanation for the pay differences.

Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, and not the sole cause.

Redeployment is not a disability-related reasonable adjustment if the employee doesn’t meet the essential criteria for the role.

The legal definition of a ‘woman’ under the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex.

An NHS Trust had taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to prevent a black employee from being racially abused.

A tribunal had incorrectly struck out an employee’s claims for detriments for blowing the whistle under the Employment Rights Act and discrimination/detriments claims under the Equality Act. An organisation, other than the employee’s employer, could potentially be liable under specific sections even without a direct contractual relationship with the employee.

Employers cannot discipline an employee for manifesting a protected belief because someone else may be offended - unless they have also considered whether the action is both necessary and proportionate.

A belief in English nationalism, including anti-Islamic views, is not a protected belief under the Equality Act.

The possibility of delaying a disabled employee’s dismissal pending a reorganisation was relevant to whether his dismissal was justified.

Although on the facts of this case failure to consider redeployment did not amount to a failure to make reasonable adjustments, the tribunal should have considered the issue of redeployment when deciding the fairness of a dismissal, even though it hadn’t been raised by the claimant.

Where a disability places an employee at the substantial disadvantage that they cannot continue in their present job, and are at risk of imminent dismissal, there is no rule of law that it cannot be a reasonable adjustment to give them a trial period in a new role.

An employer treated an employee unfavourably because of something arising from her disability of menopause and failed to make reasonable adjustments.

An employer’s failure fully to enquire into a dyspraxic job applicant’s needs when he was applying online led to a finding of disability discrimination for failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Only unwanted conduct of which a claimant is aware can be taken into account in a claim for harassment.

‘Gender-critical’ beliefs, including a belief that biological sex is real, important, immutable and not to be conflated with gender identity, are protected under the Equality Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

A decision to dismiss based on tainted information given by a line manager to the dismissing manager could not make the dismissal discriminatory unless the dismissing manager was motivated by the relevant protected characteristic (here pregnancy).

A disabled employee’s dismissal was not discrimination arising from a disability because it was a proportionate means of achieving the employer’s legitimate aim of maintaining good staff attendance.

A director who was dismissed while divorcing her husband, a director at the same company, was not subjected to marital discrimination.

It was not a reasonable adjustment simply to slot a disabled employee into a new structure as part of a redundancy exercise.