header-logo header-logo

Employment law brief: 15 March 2024

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

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