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

Search results

Results for "":

  1. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1105 Date: November 2024 Author Sacha Sokhi
    Anderson v CAE Crewing Services Ltd F [2024] EAT 78; May 22, 2024 Liability of medical examiners as agents for purposes of vicarious liability in discrimination claims Go direct to Briefing
  2. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1106 Date: November 2024 Author Shannon Henderson
    Cairns v Royal Mail [2024] EAT 129; July 23, 2024 EAT considers request for reasonable adjustments in light of employer’s pending restructure Go direct to Briefing
  3. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1107 Date: November 2024 Author Jessica Hunt
    Minis Childcare Ltd v Ms Z Hilton-Webb [2024] EAT 108; July 10, 2024 This case highlights some of the complexities in bringing an indirect discrimination claim. It focuses on the importance of a tribunal giving clear and detailed reasoning for its decisions, especially in the area of indirect discrimination Go direct to Briefing
  4. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1108 Date: November 2024 Authors Fiona Byrne Roshan Croker
    Scottish Water v Edgar F [2024] EAT 32; March 6, 2024 Material factor defence in equal pay - a failure of a respondent to evidence the identity of the relevant pay decision-maker and their contemporaneous mindset in an equal pay claim will not necessarily be fatal to a material factor defence (MFD Go direct to Briefing
  5. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1109 Date: November 2024 Author Sean O’Donoghue
    Mr W Augustine v Data Cars Ltd [2024] EAT 117; July 15, 2024 Narrow causation test in part-time worker’s less favourable treatment claim - there is conflicting case law on the test for causation in claims of less favourable treatment brought by part-time workers Go direct to Briefing
  6. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1110 Date: November 2024 Author David Stephenson
    Leicester City Council v Parmar F [2024] EAT 85; June 4, 2024 Guidance on how the burden of proof operates in discrimination cases - this is a reminder about how the burden of proof operates & identifies what factors can be taken into account when considering whether the burden of proof has shifted in any given case Go direct to Briefing
  7. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1111 Date: November 2024 Author Daniel Zona
    Baldwin v Cleves School, Hodges and Miller F [2024] EAT 66; May 3, 2024 This case is a good reminder for practitioners to advance a defence under s109(4) EA where possible and that named respondents cannot always be safe from liability merely because they were acting in the course of their employment Go direct to Briefing
  8. Briefing
    Volume: 83 Briefing: 1112 Date: November 2024 Author Shannon Salomone
    R (On the application of Donald) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (with Black Equity Organisation, UNISON and Speaker of the House of Commons intervening) [2024] EWHC 1492; June 19, 2024 This case challenged the government’s decision not to implement a number of the recommendations made by Wendy Williams in the ‘Windrush Lessons Learned review’ which led to indirect discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 Go direct to Briefing
  9. Practitioner group meetings
  10. E-news
  11. E-news
  12. Open meetings
  13. Annual Report
  14. Annual accounts
  15. E-news
  16. DLA submissions and consultations
  17. DLA conferences
  18. Practitioner group meetings
  19. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1113 Date: March 2025 Authors Tilly Smith Ben Twomey
    A cycle of inequality: minority ethnic renters’ experience of discrimination The authors review the experience of minority ethnic people who rent properties in the private sector. They highlight the structural disadvantages many of them face which make it especially difficult for this group to access and keep safe and secure homes Go direct to Briefing
  20. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1115 Date: March 2025 Authors Dr Diljeet Kaur Bhachu John Shortell
    Gender-based discrimination in the music industries The authors describe the extent of discrimination and harassment endured by women in the music industries. They echo the findings of the Women and Equalities Committee’s inquiry into misogyny in music and call for greater legislative protection. Go direct to Briefing
  21. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1116 Date: March 2025 Author Peter Daly
    Patterns in gender-critical belief discrimination The author (the solicitor representing the claimant Dr Eleanor Frances) reviews the pattern of recent litigation in gender-critical belief discrimination claims and gives his personal view on the reasons behind the trend towards settlement of these claims Go direct to Briefing
  22. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1117 Date: March 2025 Author Robin Moira White
    Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA 109, February 12, 2025 Manifestation of belief – use of social media. Detrimental action because of a protected belief is likely to be unlawful but it is not unlawful discrimination to act in response to a justified objection to the manner of expression of a protected belief. Go direct to Briefing
  23. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1118 Date: March 2025 Author Austin Clavane
    Karim v The General Medical Council F [2024] EWCA Civ 770; July 9, 2024 Statistical evidence and choice of comparator in direct discrimination cases - this case serves as an important reminder that, in cases of direct discrimination, the claimant’s case must not be materially different to the comparator’s. Go direct to Briefing
  24. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1119 Date: March 2025 Author Sally Robertson
    Carozzi v University of Hertfordshire & another F [2024] EAT 169; October 9, 2024 ‘Related to’ - a broad pragmatic concept - the claimant Elaine Carozzi was still within a 6-month probationary period which had been extended 2x when she resigned claiming constructive dismissal, direct religious discrimination, direct race discrimination Go direct to Briefing
  25. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1120 Date: March 2025 Author Angela Nguyen
    NSL Ltd v Mr P Zaluski [2024] EAT 86; June 5, 2024 Unauthorised absence policy was not indirectly discriminatory - important reminder that when considering the objective justification of a provision, criterion or practice, the focus must be on impact PCP has on the group not the individual’s circumstances Go direct to Briefing
  26. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1121 Date: March 2025 Author Ahilya Gurung
    Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust & Ors F [2024] EAT 141; September 5, 2024 Discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief - this ruling reaffirms the position that for philosophical beliefs to be protected under s10 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), all five criteria set out in Grainger Plc v Nicholson must be met. Go direct to Briefing
  27. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1122 Date: March 2025 Author Ioana Jelea
    Worchester Health and Care NHS Trust v Allen [2024] EAT 40; March 19, 2024 EAT considers the criteria for proving continuing discriminatory conduct to ensure claims are pursued in time Go direct to Briefing
  28. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1123 Date: March 2025 Authors Martina Murphy Jessica Franklin
    British Airways Plc v Rollett & Others F [2024] EAT 131; August 15, 2024 A new class of claimant in discrimination law - it is no longer a requirement for a claimant bringing an indirect discrimination claim to have a relevant protected characteristic Go direct to Briefing
  29. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1124 Date: March 2025 Author Robin Moira White
    Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education F [2024] EWHC 1878 (Admin), July 25, 2024 Protected beliefs and misgendering of schoolchildren Go direct to Briefing
  30. Briefing
    Volume: 84 Briefing: 1125 Date: March 2025 Author Laura Redman
    The King (on the Application of AK) v Westminster City Council [2024] EWHC 769 (Admin); April 5, 2024 Housing allocation policy was indirectly discriminatory - this case demonstrates that where the requirements of the PSED are not followed, this can demonstrate that the authority cannot justify its actions under s19 EA Go direct to Briefing