header-logo header-logo

Casting aspersions

13 February 2015 / Catherine Urquhart
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail
urquhart

Catherine Urquhart reports on a new frontier in discrimination law

There has recently been extensive discussion of whether discrimination on the basis of one’s caste may be prohibited by s 9(1) of the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of race.

On 19 December 2014 Mr Justice Langstaff handed down his judgment in the first Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case to consider caste-based discrimination, Chandhok v Tirkey UKEAT/0190/14/KN, [2015] All ER (D) 91 (Jan).

Ms Tirkey had alleged that her employers, Mr and Mrs Chandhok, had discriminated against her in part due to her low status in the caste system. At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Sigsworth had refused to strike out the amendment claiming caste-based discrimination, and the respondents appealed.

Section 9(1) of the Equality Act 2010 defines “race” as including: (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. There is currently no reference to caste in this sub-section.

Langstaff P considered Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, [1983] 1 All ER 1062 (the case which

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll