Under Equality Act 2010, employees have protection against discrimination on grounds of ‘religion or belief’. Whether or not a person’s views should be regarded as a ‘protected belief’ is often a contentious preliminary issue. Tribunals are guided by principles set out by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Grainger v Nicholson, something which the EAT had to consider in a recent case involving a belief in English nationalism.
Where an employer knows (or reasonably ought to know) that an employee is disabled, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is engaged. Employers must take reasonable steps to remove any disadvantage at which an employee is placed by reason of their disability. A recent EAT case looked at whether it could be a failure to make reasonable adjustments, where an adjustment was raised at appeal stage.
‘Associative discrimination’ occurs when someone faces a disadvantage but does not hold the relevant protected characteristic (meaning either sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief, age, gender reassignment, pregnancy or marriage) themselves. UK law already recognises direct associative discrimination and harassment. For example, in Coleman v Attridge Law, the European Court of Justice ruled that an employee could claim discrimination due to her child’s disability.
In 2007, Tesco re-organised its warehouses resulting in mass relocations. As an alternative to potential redundancy, Tesco negotiated with USDAW (the recognised trade union) that it would give any staff, who stayed on and agreed to be relocated, a ‘Retained Pay’ payment which would be paid to them each month. ‘Retained Pay’ was described in the contracts of employment as ‘permanent’. In 2021, Tesco attempted to remove Retained Pay by firing and re-hiring on new terms which excluded Retained Pay.
The landscape surrounding sexual harassment in the workplace has changed significantly following the #MeToo movement dating back to 2017. Since then, following reports published in 2021 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC), the government acknowledged that existing legal protections against harassment in the workplace left room for improvement. It launched a consultation to consider sexual harassment in the workplace including whether a mandatory duty should be imposed upon employers to ensure employees are better protected from sexual harassment.
Employers who wish to avoid the risk of employment claims from departing employees are able to enter into a settlement agreement under which employment claims are settled.
Employees are protected under Equality Act 2010 from being treated less favourably because of a disability (section 13 Equality Act 2010). The disability doesn’t have to be the employee’s disability. It can be the disability of another person. If an employer treats an employee less favourably because of the disability of another person (normally, but not necessarily, someone ‘associated’ with the employee), this will be direct disability discrimination – known as ‘associative discrimination’.
The requirement to travel for a job is usually something that is made clear at the start of employment. Each party knows where they stand. But what happens if an employer’s expectations for employee travel change?
Employers often provide benefits to employees which are not directly administered by the employer themselves. They use third-party providers instead. Private Health Insurance and Company cars are good examples of this. The employer will state in the employment contract that the employee is entitled to the named benefit. The employer will then have a separate commercial agreement with the benefit provider which facilitates this. The employee will not be party to this agreement and will often be entirely unaware of it.
Disclosure is the part of tribunal proceedings where each party — employee and employer — provides the other with a list of all the documents relevant to the issues in the claim. The employment tribunals have adopted the civil court rules in respect of disclosure and inspection of documents. Rule 31.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a party to disclose the documents on which he relies, or which adversely affect his own or another party’s case and those which support any other party’s case.
| 
