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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll