header-logo header-logo

Tribunals must account for stigma

19 November 2009
Issue: 7394 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court of Appeal rules financial loss should include stigma from bringing discrimination claim

Employment tribunals should take into account the stigma of bringing a discrimination claim when assessing financial loss, the Court of Appeal has held.

In Chaggers v Abbey National, the employment tribunal upheld Abbey National employee Balbinder Chaggers’ claim that his selection for redundancy was motivated by race. He was awarded £2.79m on the premise he would never again be able to find employment in his chosen field of the financial services industry.

Abbey contended that Chaggers would have been made redundant anyway, and that they should not be held responsible for the stigma attached to legal claims by others.

Chaggers countered that he should be compensated for the full loss of the discrimination. He claimed he was discriminated against by potential employers because of the stigma of bringing a claim, the length of time he was unemployed, the issue surrounding his departure and the fact he was applying for jobs that would normally be filled internally.

In an important ruling on the

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll