Indirect and direct race discrimination
In deciding whether a general claim, “whether I have been victimised and discriminated against on racial grounds contrary to the 1976 RRA” included a claim for indirect as well as direct race discrimination, it was necessary for the employment tribunal to look at the whole application. If a general claim is particularised later in the claim form it would be deceptive for a claimant to be able to rely on the generality of a statement about the nature of their claim at the beginning of the claim form to introduce a ‘new’ claim not detailed in the more detailed particulars contained in the claim form.
Ali v Office of National Statistics (Court of Appeal)
We recently reported the claim by Shabina Begum, a schoolgirl from Luton in Bedfordshire who was excluded from her school for insisting on wearing the jilbab, a traditional Muslim “head-to-toe” dress, to school. She took her claim to the Court of Appeal, maintaining that her school had unlawfully excluded her, that it unlawfully denied her the right to manifest her religion and that it unlawfully denied her access to suitable and appropriate education. Her appeal was successful.
R (on the application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Court of Appeal)
Fixed term contracts: less favourable treatment
Non-renewal of a fixed term contract was not capable of being less favourable treatment where the only treatment complained of was the failure to renew or extend a fixed term contract.
Department for Work and Pensions v Webley (Court of Appeal)
Collective redundancy obligations
Collective redundancy obligations may be triggered where an employer proposes to dismiss some employees but to offer to redeploy some or all of them. If the employer in reality proposes to move the employee to a different contract of employment then the redeployment will count as a redundancy for the purposes of the collective consultation regulations. This will largely be a question of fact as to the nature of any changes in terms and conditions and the differences of the roles being offered in each redeployment situation.
Hardy v Tourism South East (EAT)