Skip to main content
Discrimination Law Association homepage Discrimination Law Association
Login

Briefings Index (by article)

  1. Volume: 70 Briefing: 938 Date: 2020 Author Simon Cuthbert
    Safeway Ltd v Newton CJEU holds that a pension scheme and female members pension entitlement could not be retroactively changed to prevent discrimination between women and men. Go direct to Briefing
  2. Volume: 70 Briefing: 937 Date: 2020 Authors Henrietta Hill QC Simon Cuthbert
    Sex discrimination and pension equalisation Go direct to Briefing
  3. Volume: 70 Briefing: 936 Date: 2020 Author Stephen Heath
    Vegan discrimination in eating disorder units Go direct to Briefing
  4. Volume: 70 Briefing: 935 Date: 2020 Authors Catherine Casserley Chris Fry
    The Coronavirus Act 2020 and its impact on disabled people Go direct to Briefing
  5. Volume: 69 Briefing: 934 Date: 2020 Author Henrietta Hill QC
    R (on the application of Delve) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Administrative Court rules that pensions legislation which equalised the pension age for men and women was not discriminatory against women on grounds of age, sex or age and sex; the women had not received inadequate notice of the changes so as to render Go direct to Briefing
  6. Volume: 69 Briefing: 933 Date: 2020 Author Michael Reed
    Jakkhu v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd EAT upholds claimants appeal and finds that the EU had mistakenly concluded that a dismissal which was later reversed could not found a discrimination claim. Go direct to Briefing
  7. Volume: 69 Briefing: 932 Date: 2020 Author Sally Robertson
    Raj v Capita Business Services Ltd & Ward ET rejected part of employers explanation for a female manager massaging a male subordinates shoulders. EAT held it would have been correct to decide there were no facts from which it could conclude that the unwanted conduct related to the claimants sex. Go direct to Briefing
  8. Volume: 69 Briefing: 931 Date: 2020 Author Emma Satyamurti
    Parnaby v Leicester City Council EAT overturns ET decision that the effects of a former employees work-related stress were not long-term because they improved following his dismissal. It was an error to apply the benefit of hindsight to the assessment of whether the effects were likely Go direct to Briefing
  9. Volume: 69 Briefing: 930 Date: 2020 Author Nina Khuffash
    Badara v Pulse Healthcare Limited EAT upholds indirect discrimination complaint, finding that the emp-loyer was not entitled to rely on a negative right to work check notice from the Home Office in relation to an EEA family member employee. Go direct to Briefing
  10. Volume: 69 Briefing: 929 Date: 2020 Author Henrietta Hill QC
    Colleridge Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust EAT holds that s26(1) EA 2010 cannot be interpreted to impose liability on an employer for third-party harassment against employees. Go direct to Briefing
  11. Volume: 69 Briefing: 928 Date: 2020 Author Megan Rothman
    Base Childrenswear Limited v Otshudi CA considers the issue of inferences and the shifting burden of proof. It holds that if an employer lies, albeit in good faith, about the reason for dismissal then that will be enough to shift the burden of proof in a discrimination case. Go direct to Briefing
  12. Volume: 69 Briefing: 927 Date: 2020 Author Lara Kennedy
    Gilham v Ministry of Justice SC holds that a district judge is entitled to claim whistle-blower protection as an officeholder despite not being a worker under the ERA 1996. In utilising the interpretative powers of the HRA 1998 the SC has extended the scope of those who may be Go direct to Briefing
  13. Volume: 69 Briefing: 926 Date: 2020 Author Simon Cuthbert
    Safeway Ltd v Newton CJEU holds that a pension scheme and female members pension entitlement could not be retroactively changed to prevent discrimination between women and men. Go direct to Briefing
  14. Volume: 69 Briefing: 925 Date: 2020 Author Claire Powell
    NH v Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI Advocate General Sharpston concludes that remarks made by a senior lawyer in the course of a radio interview could constitute unlawful discrimination as defined in the Equal Treatment Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. In the absence of an identifiable Go direct to Briefing
  15. Volume: 69 Briefing: 924 Date: 2020 Authors Ryan Bradshaw Paige Jones
    JD & A v UK European Court of Human Rights ECtHR considers the ability of a national government to justify acts of discrimination and finds that the UKs bedroom tax policy unlawfully discriminated against women at risk of domestic violence. This decision includes a tightening of the wide margin of Go direct to Briefing
  16. Volume: 69 Briefing: 923 Date: 2020 Author Declan ODempsey
    Justifying age discrimination- recent developments Go direct to Briefing
  17. Volume: 69 Briefing: 922 Date: 2020 Author Catherine Casserley
    Belief- a new frontier or the same thing re-packaged? Go direct to Briefing
  18. Volume: 68 Briefing: 921 Date: 2019 Author Rosalee Dorfman Mohajer
    R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Interveners: (1) Residential Landlords Association (2) Equality and Human Rights Commission (3) Liberty High Court declares that the right to rent scheme in ss 20 - 37 of the Immigration Act 2014 is incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR as it causes unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and nationality. Go direct to Briefing
  19. Volume: 68 Briefing: 920 Date: 2019 Author Doreen Reeves
    Aston v Martlett Group EAT lays down the legal test for the scope of protection of s108(a) EA and overturns the ETs decision which had been wrong to treat itself bound by a finding made at a preliminary hearing and had erred in dismissing the claim under s15 EA. The matter was Go direct to Briefing
  20. Volume: 68 Briefing: 919 Date: 2019 Author Kim Crangle
    Mart v Assessment Services Ltd EAT upholds ETs decision that an employees visual impairment was not a disability for the purpose of the EA, despite her (unpleaded) claim that she suffered some side effects from wearing contact lens. Go direct to Briefing
  21. Volume: 68 Briefing: 918 Date: 2019 Author Margherita Cornaglia
    R (ASK) & R (MDA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors CA holds that the SSHD failed in her duty to make reasonable adjustments to the immigration detention decision-making processes which failed to provide mentally-ill detainees with assistance to understand or make representations on decisions to detain or Go direct to Briefing
  22. Volume: 68 Briefing: 917 Date: 2019 Author Sally Robertson
    Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey CA upholds ETs decision that the claimant had been subjected to direct perceived disability discrimination. A claimant who is perceived to have a progressive condition is to be treated as disabled within the meaning of s13 EA. Go direct to Briefing
  23. Volume: 68 Briefing: 916 Date: 2019 Author Michael Reed
    L v Q Ltd CA overturns ETs decision not to publish its judgment on the ETs online register of decisions. The principle of open justice requires publication of judgments. Go direct to Briefing
  24. Volume: 68 Briefing: 915 Date: 2019 Author Toby Vanhegan
    Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd CA considers whether to grant relief in a case where there had been an admitted breach of the s149 EA public sector equality duty. Holds that, if on the facts of the case, it is highly likely that the relevant decision would not have been substantially Go direct to Briefing
  25. Volume: 68 Briefing: 914 Date: 2019 Author Yavnik Ganguly
    Owen v AMEC Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd CA dismisses appeal on direct and indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. CA holds that it was correct to ascribe health risk to comparators in disability discrimination cases. CA also provides guidance on Go direct to Briefing