header-logo header-logo

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

Caste discrimination claim victory

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll