The former boss of Britain’s best-known HIV charity was unfairly dismissed because she had blown the whistle about the alleged misbehaviour of a trustee, an Employment Tribunal has concluded.

Read more

In R (on the Application of Hottak and Another) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that employees who work abroad and wished to bring claims under the Equality Act in the UK must satisfy the same territorial jurisdiction test as that established in the House of Lords (as it then was) in Lawson v Serco Limited in relation to unfair dismissal claims under the Employment Rights Act. In doing so, the Court dismissed an appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision that Afghan nationals who were employed by the British Government to work as interpreters for British military forces in Afghanistan could not bring Equality Act claims.

Read more

In Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, the EAT has held that there only needs to be a loose causal link between an employee’s conduct and their disability, for a disability discrimination claim arising from disability to be made out.

Read more

Fears remain about the possible consequences of the National Living Wage for charities.

Read more

In Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust the EAT has upheld a Tribunal decision that disciplinary action taken against a Christian senior manager for imposing her religious views on a Muslim junior employee was not discriminatory. The junior employee complained that she felt the manager was “grooming” her by praying with her and inviting her to church services. The Tribunal and the EAT found that the employer was entitled to consider this serious misconduct, namely the blurring of the professional boundaries and the subjection of a junior colleague to improper pressure and unwanted conduct.

Read more

In Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth the EAT had to decide whether the distinction between “information” and “an allegation” could remain good law in the whistleblowing legislation. The EAT determined that it could not.

Read more

In Tanveer v East London Bus and Coach Company Limited, the EAT has held that the “corresponding date” rule set down by the House of Lords (as it then was) in Dodds v Walker applies when calculating the extension of time given to a prospective Claimant under the early conciliation rules. On the facts of the case, where the Claimant received the certificate on the 30th June the extension of time under Section 207B (4) of the Employment Rights Act meant that the claim had to be presented by the 30th July. The chronology was as follows:-

Read more

In Blake v Home Office an Employment Tribunal has held that an employer was right to dismiss an employee for taking a bribe even though she subsequently informed her employer of the fact.

Read more

In Bethnal Green and Shoreditch Education Trust v Dippenaar the EAT has upheld a Tribunal decision that a long serving teacher, who was managed out of her employment because she was more expensive to employ than a new recruit, was unfairly constructively dismissed. However, the Tribunal was wrong to find that her treatment amounted to indirect age discrimination. It was not able to establish a practice that put those in the age group of the teacher concerned at a particular disadvantage compared to a group of younger teachers; or that those in the teacher’s age group had actually suffered a particular disadvantage by the application of such a practice.

Read more

In Majekodunmi v City Facilities Management UK Limited and others the EAT has held that lodging documents by a Dropbox is not a valid method of serving them.

Read more

Mr Ajaj was a bus driver who wrongly claimed to be more sick than he was. Surveillance evidence proved that he was exaggerating his illness. The Employment Tribunal held that fairness of dismissal should be assessed based on traditional (capability) considerations i.e. when the employee could reasonably be expected to return to work based on his real, rather than his exaggerated, symptoms.

Read more

In Gallop v Newport City Council the EAT has upheld a Tribunal decision that an employee’s dismissal was not direct disability discrimination because the decision maker did not know that he was disabled. The knowledge of the employer’s occupational health department regarding the employee’s disability could not be imputed to the decision maker in the disciplinary process. This followed the guidance of the Court of Appeal in CLFIS (UK) Limited v Reynolds, where the EAT held that, when deciding whether direct discrimination has occurred, the Tribunal should focus on the thought processes and motivation of the decision maker and knowledge of disability could not be implied to the decision maker. The Tribunal has to decide whether the decision maker personally knew of, and was influenced by, the disability.

Read more