Yes, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled in a recent case where it was held that an individual may claim indirect discrimination by association under the EC Race Equality Directive.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has decided that disability discrimination arose when a job offer was withdrawn after a former employer gave a negative verbal reference.
In a recent case, the Court of Appeal has considered whether the band of reasonable responses could be expanded depending on the seriousness of the act of misconduct to the particular employer.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an Employment Tribunal (ET) should not have struck out a claim for unfair dismissal for having made protected disclosures on the basis that the employee had not told the employer about the disclosures.
The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) has recently published two guides explaining the rights to leave for attending antenatal and adoption appointments and on surrogacy.
As of May last year, anyone intending to make an Employment Tribunal claim is obliged to notify the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) first to attempt to resolve the dispute through its free Early Conciliation (EC) service.
In Andrew Hill v HMRC, the First-tier Tribunal held that a payment made to an employee under a compromise agreement (now referred to as a 'settlement agreement') was a taxable emolument.
The government has confirmed that it will shortly launch a consultation on gender pay gap reporting with a view to introducing a requirement for large companies to publish information on men’s and women’s salaries and rewards.
The Court of Appeal (CA) has held that when bringing a claim of indirect discrimination, an individual must prove personal disadvantage, as well as group disadvantage caused by the provision, criterion or practice (PCP).
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that for the purposes of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (ICE Regulations).
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that where there was insufficient evidence to establish a provision, criterion or practice an indirect discrimination claim could not succeed.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed a school's appeal, against a 90 day protective award for each employee where no consultation took place over the closure of the school and the school was not aware of its consultation obligations.
