This issue includes: Court of Appeal rules on the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010; Government publishes Call for Evidence on non-compete clauses; Disability discrimination: EAT rules on strength of causal link needed for discrimination arising from disability claims and more...
Court of Appeal rules on the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010
In the case of R (Hottak and another) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the territorial scope of the Equality Act 2010 is the same as that for claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Court dismissed the Claimants' appeal that a more lenient approach should be applied by the courts towards claimants in discrimination cases.
Government publishes Call for Evidence on non-compete clauses
The Government has published a Call for Evidence seeking views on whether non-compete clauses stifle innovation and unfairly hinder workers from moving freely between employers. If the evidence suggests that such clauses are acting as a barrier to flexibility, the Government may introduce legislation to limit the use of such restrictions. The Call for Evidence closes on 19 July 2016.
Disability discrimination: EAT rules on strength of causal link needed for discrimination arising from disability claims
The EAT has decided that an employee did not need to show a direct connection between their disability and the misconduct leading to their dismissal in order to show that the dismissal was unfair. The EAT found that this principle also applied to claims for discrimination arising from a disability (Risby v London Borough of Waltham Forest, EAT).
Discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief: beliefs associated with work
In Harron v Dorset Police the EAT has confirmed that when determining whether a belief is a "philosophical belief" protected by the Equality Act 2010, Tribunals must apply the facts of the case to: (i) the five criteria set out in Grainger plc and Ors v Nicholson; and (ii) the principles identified by the House of Lords in R(Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Where the Tribunal makes any decision as to whether any of these criteria or principles are or are not met, it must provide specific and detailed reasons for its findings in its judgment.
Resarch by Glassdoor reveals the UK lags behind rest of Europe on gender equality at work
A report by Glassdoor Economic Research on gender equality has found that the UK continues to lag behind the European average when it comes to gender equality at work, coming in at 11th overall out of 18 countries. Best for overall gender equality in the workplace are Sweden, Norway and Finland; the biggest offenders are Greece, Italy and Ireland. It is clear from the report that the gender pay gap persists throughout Europe, it also remains the case that women are particularly under-represented in jobs at senior and board level, and that the cost of motherhood throughout Europe remains high. On a positive note, the report found that women are most-represented in professional and more technically-demanding jobs, and further education significantly increases a woman's probability of being employed.
Redundancies: the cost of getting it wrong is significant
In an article first published by Thomson Reuters, Managing Associate, Annabel Mackay considers the issues employers need to consider when embarking on redundancy exercises and the costs of getting it wrong.
Immigration Act 2016 receives Royal Assent giving the Government additional powers to tackle illegal working and the exploitation of workers
The Immigration Act 2016, which received Royal Assent on 12 May 2016, contains new powers to be used by Government with the aim of assisting in the prevention of illegal working and the exploitation of migrant workers.
Consultations, calls for evidence and surveys affecting employment law
A regular feature of our Up to date briefing is to keep you appraised of open consultations, calls for evidence and surveys affecting the employment law arena. If you would like us to respond on your behalf, please let us know.
