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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll