header-logo header-logo

25 September 2008
Issue: 7338 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Good intentions?

What next for Cardiff Women's Aid? Chris Milsom reports

While discriminatory job advertisements have long been regarded as unlawful, only the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) can bring claims against their authors or publishers; individuals are currently barred from doing so. The justification for this is that an advertisement can only ever constitute an intent to discriminate rather than an act.

It may well have been decided that an advertisement for a “black or Asian woman” information centre worker for Cardiff 's Women's Aid, placed in the Guardian on 19 August 1992, was lawful under s 38 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976). However, the view of the Employment Apppeal Tribunal (EAT) in Cardiff Women's Aid v Hartup [1994] IRLR 390 was that any such lawful defence was “not something for us to decide” (per Judge Levy QC at para 8). Nor did it matter whether Hartup had applied for the job or not: “We do not think that it is necessary to decide on this point in the context of the decision we have

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll