header-logo header-logo

Caste discrimination claim victory

25 September 2015
Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Landmark employment tribunal decision provides hope for victims

An Indian domestic worker has won her discrimination claim in the first employment tribunal case to recognise caste discrimination.

Ruling in Tirkey v Chandok and another (ET/3400174/2013), the tribunal upheld claims for harassment on the grounds of race, religious discrimination, unfair dismissal, pay claims and breaches of the Working Time Directive.

Permila Tirkey was born in India to the low-caste Adivasi class, and was recruited from India by Mr and Mrs Chandhok. The tribunal found she was recruited because of who she was “by birth, by virtue of her inherited position in society”.

She was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, worked 18 hours per day, slept on a foam mattress in the children’s bedroom and was paid £0.11 per hour. She had her passport confiscated, was not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied, had no control over her bank account and was not allowed to contact her family or practise her Christian faith.

The case was referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which held in January that caste discrimination may be prohibited under the Equality Act 2010 where it forms part of an individual’s ethnic origin (UKEAT/0190/14/KN). The Chandhoks had argued that this part of the claim should be struck out because caste was not a protected characteristic.

Chris Milsom of Cloisters, barrister for Tirkey, says: “Those who have closely followed the legislative history of the Equality Act will recall that the government’s original rationale for refusing explicit prohibition of caste-based discrimination was that there was no evidence of it taking place in the UK.

“The damning findings of the employment tribunal render that stance untenable. Where such discrimination exists its victims must be protected.”

He called on the Legal Aid Agency to do more to fund cases involving domestic servitude, noting that funding was refused for 17 months because the claim was not considered of “sufficient importance or seriousness” and Ms Tirkey could represent herself.

He says: “It is our experience that victims seeking to hold their traffickers to account find their applications for legal aid are routinely refused.”

Ms Tirkey was represented by the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit.

Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll