April 6: Additional paternity leave and pay legislation comes into force; why it should not matter how wide the scope of philosophical belief extends; Age discrimination: Keane v Investigo and others; case law; employment tribunal decisions
Forward to a colleague                                         View as a webpage                                         Add us to your white list    
XpertHR - Online HR Intelligence
Quick Links »   News    Perspective    Case law   Tribunal decisions   Good practice    IRS surveys   Blog
News

April 6: Additional paternity leave and pay legislation comes into force
The right to additional paternity leave and pay was introduced on 6 April 2010. This allows fathers to benefit from up to six months' additional paternity leave if the mother returns to work before using her full entitlement to statutory maternity leave. The new right is available to parents of children with an expected week of childbirth beginning on or after 3 April 2011.

Top

Perspective

Why it should not matter how wide "philosophical belief" extends
In Grainger plc v Nicholson, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) said that, to be protected under the religious discrimination Regulations, a philosophical belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity". Consultant editor Darren Newman questions the necessity of limiting protection in this way.

Top

Case law

Age discrimination: Keane v Investigo and others
The EAT upheld an employment tribunal finding that a job applicant did not suffer age discrimination when her applications were not genuine.

Age discrimination: Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt Am Main
The ECJ held that the German Government's restriction on recruitment as a firefighter to those aged 30 or under does not give rise to age discrimination because it constitutes a proportionate "genuine and determining occupational requirement" in pursuit of a legitimate aim, within the meaning of art.4(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.

Religious discrimination: Eweida v British Airways plc
The Court of Appeal upheld an employment tribunal finding that a Christian employee, who was sent home when she insisted on wearing a cross visibly, in breach of the employer's uniform policy, did not suffer indirect discrimination. The Court rejected the employee's argument that the test of indirect discrimination was met, even if she was alone in being disadvantaged by the policy.

Race discrimination: Muschett v HM Prison Service
The Court of Appeal upheld an employment tribunal decision that an agency worker was not an employee of the end user. Nor was he in its employment under the wider meaning in discrimination legislation. Therefore, he was unable to bring claims against it for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and discrimination.

Sex discrimination: O'Neill v Buckinghamshire County Council
The EAT has upheld an employment tribunal finding that the employer had not failed to carry out a risk assessment on the basis that the requirement to carry out an assessment did not apply to the employee's work. There is no general obligation to carry out a risk assessment on pregnant employees so that a failure to do so amounts to discrimination per se. The obligation to carry out a risk assessment is triggered only in certain circumstances.

Top

Employment tribunal decisions

XpertHR provides summaries of recent employment tribunal rulings involving, among other things:

› sex discrimination - Royal Navy officer whose applications for promotion were repeatedly turned down;

› sex discrimination - an employee who successfully claimed despite having an illegal contract of employment with her employer;

› sexual orientation discrimination - gay pub employee who was subjected to offensive comments;

› religious discrimination - a Muslim applicant who claimed against a Christian organisation;

› disability discrimination - a job offer that was made to an applicant with bipolar affective disorder was withdrawn; and

› age discrimination - a 42-year-old disc jockey who was subjected to age discrimination.

Top

Good practice guides

Good practice: Disability
This good practice guide covers: how to attract disabled people to an organisation; how to make the application and interview processes inclusive; and the ongoing considerations to ensure that disabled employees are employed productively for their skills and experience.

Top

IRS surveys

IRS flexible working survey 2010: combating the recession
In this report on the IRS flexible working survey 2010, IRS investigates employers' use of flexible working measures to cut employment costs and reduce job losses.

IRS flexible working survey 2010: take-up and employee requests
IRS finds that the number of employee requests to work flexibly is on the increase. Most employers consider requests to work flexibly from all employees, and informal arrangements are now the norm.

IRS flexible working survey 2010: benefits, issues, and making it work
IRS looks at which options are on offer, their benefits and pitfalls, and how organisations are successfully adapting to new ways of working.

Top

From the blog

› Draft EHRC code of practice: don't panic!

› Is your workplace disability confident?

Top

Editor's message

AGE DISCRIMINATION
In Keane v Investigo and others, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the employment tribunal finding that Ms Keane, an experienced 51-year-old accountant, did not suffer age discrimination because her applications for positions that were clearly directed at recently qualified accountants with limited experience were not genuine.

The decision in Keane is relevant to all strands of discrimination law and confirms that an individual must suffer a genuine detriment before direct or indirect discrimination may be established.

In the high profile case of Eweida v British Airways plc, the Court of Appeal dismissed Miss Eweida’s appeal against the EAT finding that she had not suffered indirect religious discrimination when she was sent home for wearing a cross visibly, in breach of British Airways’ uniform policy.

The EAT and Court of Appeal have also handed down important judgments relating to sex discrimination and the definition of employment for the purposes of discrimination legislation.

Jeya Thiruchelvam
Equal opportunities editor,
XpertHR

 

NEW! XpertHR Benchmarking
XpertHR Benchmarking Benchmark your employment practices, policies and performance; download results for use in your own reports; and benefit from four decades of HR benchmarking expertise.

 

XpertHR Salary Surveys
XpertHR Benchmarking Compare salary levels, check on bonuses and commission, and follow pay trends using our unique online Job Pricing tool; sign up now to benefit from XpertHR salary survey data.
Get more out of XpertHR

Model policies
Good practice guides
Line manager briefings
Salary surveys
Tools for subscribers

My XpertHR
User guide
Advanced search
XpertHR feeds
Customer services

Password reminder
Email the helpdesk
or call 0845 671 1110
Read previous newsletters
Part of the XpertHR Group
Forward to a colleague xperthr.co.uk
This email has been sent to luke.smith@rbi.co.uk

Unsubscribe from future equal opportunities emails.

Disclaimer This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("Intended Recipient") to whom it is addressed. It may contain information, which is privileged and confidential. Accordingly any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message or any of its content by any person other than the Intended Recipient may constitute a breach of civil or criminal law and is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended Recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible.

© Reed Business Information Ltd +44 (0)20 8652 3500 | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy

Registered Office: Reed Business, Quadrant House, 9th Floor, The Quadrant, Sutton, SM2 5AS.
Registered in England & Wales: 151537