In Hope v British Medical Association, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a dismissal on the grounds of gross misconduct relating to the raising of multiple vexatious grievances was fair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently upheld an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that an employee who made controversial remarks on Zionism was unfairly dismissed.
The EAT has recently held in Bennett v MiTAC Europe Limited that an employee with cancer will be disabled under the Equality Act 2010 from the date on which they fell ill, and not from the date on which the cancer was diagnosed.
Returning to work: a requirement to work full time from the office may be discriminatory against those with caring responsibilities.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a Tribunal judgment that a whistleblower who was dismissed for criticising a colleague was not automatically unfairly dismissed.
In the case of Gwynedd Council v Barratt, the UK Court of Appeal has ruled that the refusal by the employer to allow an employee the right to an appeal against their dismissal by reason of redundancy, was a relevant factor in determining whether the dismissal was unfair or not; however, it would not make the dismissal inevitably unfair.
The High Court has ruled that the personal injury case of Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd was able to proceed, despite the parties having entered into a Settlement Agreement to settle the same matter arising in an Employment Tribunal claim brought five years previously.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a tribunal’s decision that a prison officer should be compensated for career long loss resulting from discrimination and harassment he suffered because of his sexual orientation.
The case of Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi reviewed whether Section 136 (2) of the Equality Act 2010 (“Section 136 (2)”) had altered the burden of proof in employment cases alleging discrimination. Mr Efobi, the Claimant in this case, was arguing that the Equality Act had removed the burden of proof from Claimants to demonstrate that on the balance of possibilities, in the absence of an adequate explanation, an unlawful act of discrimination had been committed and instead created a neutral burden.
A landmark ruling has recently been handed down by the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in which Justice Choudhury, ruled that employment tribunal’s judgments must take childcare disparity into account, particularly in respect of indirect discrimination claims.
