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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll