Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Age discriminationEmployment lawData protectionLatest NewsGig economy

Seven key employment law cases from 2020

by Brightmine 17 Dec 2020
by Brightmine 17 Dec 2020 The Morrisons case was a landmark one involving the leak of the personal data of 1000s of colleagues
Mikael Buck/Morrisons/PA Wire/PA Images
The Morrisons case was a landmark one involving the leak of the personal data of 1000s of colleagues
Mikael Buck/Morrisons/PA Wire/PA Images

While the focus has been on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, HR professionals have still had their fair share of employment law cases to keep track of in 2020. We highlight seven noteworthy cases from 2020 that employers should know about.

1. Employer not vicariously liable for rogue employee’s data leak

WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various claimants (Supreme Court, 1 April 2020)

Keep track of key employment law cases on appeal

In this landmark data breach group action, a rogue employee deliberately leaked online the personal data of almost 100,000 colleagues.

The Supreme Court found that the employee was not engaged in furthering his employer’s business, but was pursuing a personal vendetta for facing disciplinary proceedings some months earlier. Consequently, the court held that the employer was not vicariously liable for the data breach.

While employers will welcome the decision, they must bear in mind that each vicarious liability case is fact-specific.

2. Senior lawyer’s homophobic comments on radio breached EU law

NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI – Rete Lenford (ECJ, 23 April 2020)

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a senior lawyer’s comments on a radio show that he would not wish to recruit homosexual people breached EU law.

This was despite the fact that the lawyer’s firm was not recruiting, or planning to recruit, at the time.

While this case concerns homophobic comments, it highlights the importance of providing all staff with robust and proactive training on wider diversity and inclusion issues.

3. Dismissal of teacher over indecent images of children was unfair

K v L (EAT, 24 April 2020)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT’s) conclusion that the dismissal of a school teacher for possessing indecent images of children was unfair might surprise employers.

However, the EAT focused on the employer’s failure to cite reputational damage as a potential ground for dismissal.

More unfair dismissal cases

Uddin v London Borough of Ealing

Tai Tarian Ltd v Christie

This case is a stark reminder that different considerations apply where the potential ground for dismissal is reputational damage, as opposed to misconduct. Employers should make sure that they provide sufficient notice of all grounds on which an employee may face dismissal.

4. Discrimination arising from disability: focus on employer’s thought processes

Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions (Court of Appeal , 7 July 2020)

Here, the Court of Appeal clarified the correct approach to establish the cause of the unfavourable treatment in discrimination arising from disability claims. The Court confirmed that the focus must be on the reasons for the treatment, which requires an examination of the thought processes of the decision-makers concerned.

As the claimant’s disability meant that she found it “impossible” to use her employer’s software, the employer had moved her temporarily to a paper-based role until it had resolved the technical difficulties.

The Court held that even if moving her to a paper-based role as an interim measure was unfavourable, it allowed her to remain at work and at the same pay grade. As a result, the employer’s actions were reasonable and proportionate.

This case is an important reminder to train staff on disability discrimination as their thought processes may be subject to close inspection by a tribunal.

5. Employee who had paranoid delusions about Russian gang not disabled

Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd (EAT, 9 September 2020)

In this case, the employer dismissed the claimant for issues relating to his timekeeping and attitude. The claimant, who suffered from paranoid delusions about a “Russian gang problem”, claimed disability discrimination.

More disability discrimination cases

Rakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust

Hill v Lloyds Bank plc

However, the EAT decided that he was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010. His doctor had based his opinion that a disability existed on the claimant’s account and not on “factually accurate descriptions of independently observed reality”.

The EAT observed that it was impossible to link every instance of the claimant’s poor timekeeping or record-keeping to his impairment because he had a relaxed attitude to these matters before the onset of his delusional beliefs.

6. Keeping within pay constraints justified discriminatory pay policy

Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice (Court of Appeal, 11 November 2020)

In this long-running case, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the employer’s need to reduce expenditure due to budgetary constraints imposed by the Government is a legitimate aim, and the employer’s discriminatory pay policy is a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

Here, changes to the employer’s pay progression policy meant that newly appointed probation officers took 23 years to progress to the top of the pay scale, instead of the previous seven or eight years.

A probation officer brought a claim of age discrimination, arguing that the pay progression policy indirectly discriminated against younger probation officers.

More age discrimination cases

Kirk v Citibank NA and others

Munro v Sampson Coward LLP

Broadist v HM Prison Service

The Court’s decision will be of particular interest to public-sector employers that have to balance cost savings with avoiding discrimination.

7. Gig economy: EU health and safety rights extend to workers

R (on the application of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another (High Court, 13 November 2020)

In this potentially very important case for gig economy workers, the High Court held that the Government has failed to implement properly EU health and safety Directives by excluding workers from UK legislation.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In particular, the High Court ruled that provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 should give workers, and not just employees, protection against detriment for taking steps in response to serious and imminent danger. The Court also accepted that workers should also be covered in the UK’s personal protective equipment (PPE) laws.

While the decision does not provide guidance on whether or not employers are doing enough to protect their workers from the risk of COVID-19 infection, businesses should review their health and safety arrangements for workers.
relx_copyright – This article is Brightmine content – Copyright 2024 LexisNexis Risk Solutions

Brightmine

Brightmine is the UK's most comprehensive online source of legal compliance, good practice and benchmarking information made available to HR professionals as a single subscription service.

previous post
Why does location matter for diversity and inclusion?
next post
MPs join unions in urging British Gas/Centrica to end fire-rehire threat

You may also like

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

NHS worker awarded £29k after Darth Vader comparison

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Lincolnshire doctor awarded £250k in race discrimination case

2 May 2025

Top 10 HR questions April 2025: increases to...

2 May 2025

M&S unfairly dismissed pregnant bakery worker

29 Apr 2025

Recruiter who returned to empty office after maternity...

23 Apr 2025

Accountant wins maximum payout for unfair dismissal

14 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+