header-logo header-logo

14 June 2007 / Elliot Gold
Issue: 7277 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Walking on eggshells

How can employers avoid accusations of victimisation? Elliot Gold investigates

Perhaps Oscar Wilde was thinking of litigation letters in employment tribunal claims when he mused that in matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, was the vital thing. It is clear that an employer is not permitted to victimise its workers on account of them bringing a discrimination claim. However, what amounts to victimisation in the context of an imminent or ongoing claim is not always a piece of cake.

Provisions against victimisation are contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA 1975), s 4. They are similar to those contained in other legislation relating to other forms of discrimination.

To demonstrate the existence of victimisation, a worker must demonstrate:
- that they had performed a “protected act”;
- as a result, their employer had treated them less favourably; and
- the less favourable treatment was “by reason that” the worker had done the protected act.
The mischief against which this guards is clear, even if the third hurdle can be difficult to surmount. As Lord Nicholls

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll