The decision in Amnesty International v Ahmed is a treasure trove of law on the meaning of direct discrimination, with subsidiary points on constructive dismissal and the relationship between these two areas. It is a lengthy judgment which merits being read in full by anyone practising in this area. As the guidance is from the EAT president, it is likely to be taken to heart by tribunals.
This month, unusually, this column concentrates on just two cases. One is of considerable topicality, concerning large pay-offs to already well-remunerated public sector executives and shows a novel application of the doctrine of ultra vires, not just to attack the substance of the agreement, but to overturn a compromise agreement containing it.
However, the first case to consider, while not so high profile is, in a legal sense potentially more important because it contains a major statement of principle by the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the approach to be taken by tribunals as to the meaning of discrimination.
The Amnesty International case
The
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
