This month’s case round up in brief
TUPE and undertakings comprised of a single employee
The EAT confirmed a single employee can be an ‘economic undertaking’ for the
purpose of TUPE. An argument that subsequent ECJ case law had overruled the
case of Schmidt on this point was rejected.
(Dudley Bower Building Services v Lowe and Others, EAT)
Comparators in sex and race discrimination cases
The House of Lords has reiterated that in sex and race discrimination cases,
it is essential to correctly identify the appropriate comparator. In this case,
complaints were made about appraisals carried out by the applicant, a chief
inspector of police. Her right to continue carrying out appraisals was removed.
The tribunal wrongly upheld her complaint of sex discrimination by
considering her treatment compared with that of male colleagues, whose right to
conduct appraisals had not been removed.
The proper comparison should have been with male colleagues who’d had
complaints made about them. The comparator’s circumstances must not be
‘materially different’ to the applicant’s.
(Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, HL)