header-logo header-logo

Walking on eggshells

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

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 stated

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