header-logo header-logo

09 July 2020 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7894 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

Employment law brief: 9 July 2020

23823
Ian Smith walks the line of three recent employment cases

In brief

  • Dismiss all and invite reapplications: not a panacea?
  • The limits of marriage/civil partnership discrimination.
  • The relationship between discrimination arising from disability and unfair dismissal.

There is something of a theme to the three cases considered in this month’s Brief, in that they all concern borderlines and the drawing of legal lines—(1) the distinction between reorganisation and redundancy, (2) where to draw the boundary of the legal protection against discrimination on the grounds of marriage and (3) how the laws on unfair dismissal and discrimination arising from disability interrelate in a case of dismissal because of disability-related incapability.

Dismiss & reapply

The decision in Gwynedd Council v Barratt UKEAT/0206/18explores a difficult distinction in redundancy unfair dismissal law between classic cases of selection from a pool on the one hand and the modern tactic of dismissing all and inviting them to apply for the jobs available. This ultimately raises the basic question:

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