To continue reading please register or login to your OHW+ account.
The recent award of £2.8 million to ex-bank worker Balbinder Chagger for race discrimination highlights what could be a worrying trend for employers.
Yet nothing, in terms of how awards are calculated, has changed and that could be part of the problem.
With discrimination claims, there are often a number of claims, although they will usually include unfair dismissal and an injury to feelings award.
Case law has established that compensation for discrimination is based on the tortious measure of damage. This means compensation should be calculated to produce an award that equates to putting the individual back into the position they would have been in had the unlawful discrimination not taken place.
There's no cap on discrimination awards generally although since the Vento case in 2003 there is guidance (known as the Vento bands) on awards for injury to feelings ranging from £500 for less serious cases to £30,000 for the most serious ones, although higher awards can be made. How well has this worked?
The Vento bands have worked and have enabled us to advise clients on their potential exposure or award that could be made.
However, what the Chagger case highlights is that this is only one piece in the jigsaw. The total discrimination award can be significantly higher depending on the future loss of earnings.
Chagger, who'd earned £100,000 a year for four years at Abbey before redundancy, argued his loss of earnings should be based on the tortious measure of damage.
Abbey's argument highlights some of the issues at stake. Its counsel argued that any award should take into account the likelihood that Chagger's employment would have ended lawfully in any event, and that he had been unsuccessful in securing new employment because he had voluntarily disclosed to potential employers he was pursuing a discrimination claim. In other words, he had failed to mitigate his loss and, therefore, any award should reflect this.
Yet the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was not persuaded by those arguments. It ruled that Abbey had failed t
