header-logo header-logo

15 March 2024 / Ian Smith
Issue: 8063 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination , Bias , Equality
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 15 March 2024

163757
Discrimination in the workplace has been the focus of some notable cases recently. Ian Smith briefs us on four particularly thorny ones
  • Appropriate comparators and their relationship with the statutory reversal of the burden of proof.
  • Contract terms banning the wearing of overt religious signs.
  • Justification of age discrimination relating directly to the provision, criterion or practice.
  • Harassment ‘related to’ the protected characteristic.

For some months now, the cases considered in this brief have concentrated on developments in employment law as such. In the past month, however, there have been several more legislative changes (including the annual uprating of compensation amounts and changes to paternity rights) and a little flurry of case law on discrimination law in the employment context. The four cases mentioned here are: a consideration by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) of the role of comparators and how they interact with the burden of proof; a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the vexed question of bans on face coverings

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll