To continue reading please register or login to your OHW+ account.
This week's case roundup…
Employee
unable to pursue discrimination claim
Relaxion Group v Rhys-Harper, IDS Brief 667 EAT
At the appeal against her dismissal, Rhys-Harper made a complaint of sexual harassment against her manager. Both the appeal and complaint were rejected.
Her sex discrimination claim centred on an allegation that Relaxion had failed to properly investigate her complaint. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction taking into account the ECJ and EAT decisions in Coote v Granada Hospitality which extended the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act by enabling a former employee to pursue a victimisation claim relating to acts which occurred after employment had ended.
Relaxion successfully appealed. It argued that the failure to investigate the harassment complaint, the act of discrimination, post-dated the dismissal and the SDA and Coote covered only post-employment victimisation. The EAT agreed. Coote should be interpreted narrowly and applied only to cases of post-employment victimisation. Leave to appeal was given.
Awareness
of investigation necessary
London Borough of Ealing v Garry, IRLB 656, EAT
Garry, a Nigerian, was the council's housing benefits manager. After learning she had been investigated by her previous employer for suspected housing benefit fraud and soon after dismissing another Nigerian employee for a similar reason, the council appointed Singh, a "special" investigator to look into the case concerning Garry.
In March 1997 Singh concluded Garry had been involved in a fraudulent claim but Garry only learned she had been under investigation in May. The next month she met the auditors and in August the council concluded there was insufficient evidence to start disciplinary proceedings. It omitted to tell Garry or Singh of this and he continued with his investigations, albeit limited to a few further phone calls. Only in July 1998 was Garry told no further action would be taken.
She brought a successful race discrimination claim. The tribunal held that stereotypical assumptions had been made about Garry being a Nigerian and this was why a "special" rather than ordinary investigator had been appointed. Further, Garry had been subjected to a
