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

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