Emploment Law lec 4- Prohibited Conduct: Direct Discrimination Flashcards

Question

ideally what will a compartor be ?

Answer 1

Ideally, the comparator will be a real person (eg the real person who did get a job, promotion etc) -Law is quite curious on this bc tribunals forever saying – ideally REAL PERSON AS COMPART- e.g promotion or job u could maybe have person who got job od diff race religion gender as C . So on 1 hand tribunal encourages c to go fro real – BUT IF STILL IN PRACTICE WOULD THINK CAREFUL ABOUT GOING FOR REAL C- bc if tribunal feel gone for wrong 1 ur case can get thrown out.- so if theres a danger to choose real why go there?

Answer 2

However, a claimant should use a hypothetical comparator (a fictitious person with identical personal circumstances to the claimant save for the PCh) where no appropriate real comparator exists, or, as we’ll see in the next case, they risk having their discrimination claim thrown out by an ET

Answer 3

So hypothetical c is someone with identical circum but for the protected charac. Suppose only danger tot his is tribunal feel if could be REAL C (ideal) then that person should be used- so there is a risk- that’s why consider further req in our answer structure for a problem style question that as well as trying to find a protected cha and convice tribunal that there is 1 of type of prohib conduct applies.. Which I think equiv of elig require think further req especially with DD – being able to choose right c.

Answer 4

Shamoon v Chief Constable (CC) of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) 2003:

Answer 5

Shamoon v Chief Constable (CC) of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) 2003: Ms Shamoon was a chief inspector in the RUC Certain police constables complained about the way Ms Shamoom conducted their appraisals The RUC relieved Ms Shamoon of her appraisal duties Not long afterwards, the RUC dismissed Ms Shamoon Ms Shamoon made a direct discrimination claim under the then SDA 1975 The ET: accepted Ms Shamoon’s use as comparators of 2 real male chief inspectors who worked in the same branch and had the same duties as her, and found for Ms Shamoon

Answer 6

The chief constable of the RUC appealed to the CA on the grounds the comparators Ms Shamoon chose to use were inappropriate: The CA: accepted the RUC’s argument because the 2 real comparators Ms Shamoon used had had no complaints made against them Ms Shamoon appealed to the HL: The HL: upheld the CA’s ruling and reasoning that Ms Shamoon’s comparators were inappropriate because no complaints had been made about them, and ruled that Ms Shamoon should’ve used a hypothetical comparator

Answer 7

Even ca Be caredul with comparator choice- less risk with hypothetical even if encoruge to use real If ideal. And avail That’s why consider 3rd req and a bit more balnce to arg that employers discrim law too much in favour of c

Answer 8

Is there any defence to s 13? We saw in lecture 3 that a defendant employer has 2 potential defences to a s 15 claim, at s 15(1)(b) and s15(2), but no ‘official’ defence (only 2 counter-arguments) to a s 21 claim re s 20 In today’s lecture, we need to decide whether there is any defence to s 13

Answer 9

Agreed s.15 – 2 official defences wither that apparent discrim wasa propritioante emans of ahcieveing legit aim or that the employer genuially didn’t knlow that person was disabled. rMeebr agreed if come in wheelchair it will be slightly odd diff sya u didn’t realise a problem but if someone depressed less obv- so that was two defences for s.15 but when came to s.20 and rbinging calim under s.21 in respect of breach of duty under s.20- agreed kind of call them defences but realsiticall more counter arg than official defences. So what sit with s.13

Answer 10

The answer is that it depends on the PCh

Answer 11

For example, re the PCh of age, s 13(2) provides a defence of ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Answer 12

We looked in lecture 2 at the case of Seldon 2012 and agreed that having a retirement policy can be a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim, in that case the aim of giving younger associates an opportunity of partnership

Answer 13

Answer is it depends on which 9 protected char talking about differs dependant on the protected char- so fro e.g in repsect og age, that same defence , that applie sto s.15 , applies to s.13 inr epsect of age, that the discrim act can be justified provided the d employer can be justified provided the d employer can convice tribunal that the discrim act, was a proportiante means of achieving leg aim So aim has to be elgitmate and way of achieving had to be properitonate e.G lec 2 case of seldom- retirement policy can be a prop means of pruisng legit aim, so that case aim was giving younger assoc an opportunity of partnership nd if u allow older employess or worker to work to 65 not unreasonmable= proportionate.

Answer 14

Re disability, s 13(3) provides a defence where ‘B is not a disabled person’

Answer 15

Re marriage and civil partnership, s 13(4) provides a defence of ‘only if the treatment is because it is B who is married or a civil partner’

Answer 16

touch up breifly on re marriage and civil part

Answer 17

Otherwise, the only defence an employer defendant can argue is genuine occupational requirement (GOR)

Answer 18

In relation to the proteched ch of disba- s.13.3 provides defence where b not disabled person- sim to other s.15 defence- that not same bc s.15 the defences didn’t realise disabled. The defence for s.30 is proving that actually didn’t satisfy the s.6 def of disab So in temrs of marriage and civil parti- s.13 4 – otherwise only tjing call defence dd = genuine occ req

Answer 19

Under the SDA 1975, a GOR was referred to as a GOQ (genuine occupational qualification) and the SDA provided a list of GOQs

Answer 20

The ‘defence’ was that the nature of the job required a person of a certain gender (eg an audition for an actor to play Batman or for a body searcher to search men entering a football stadium) so that the defendant’s choice of 1 person over another was legitimate

Answer 21

-But what used to be called QUALIF Its same defence just diff term How does it work- nature of job r/aa/w – e.g where g.or defence would apply eque e.g fotabl mach might seache couldbe got 9 male employees seach but not 1 femaels female que and very reasonable to employee female researcher where gro defence would apply- only real defence have to DIRECT DISCRIM other than the protected cha specific ones that mentioned earlier.

Answer 22

The gor defence has been expanded - Under the EA 2010, a GOQ is now a GOR and the list has been done away with, but the GOR ‘defence’ has been expanded from solely sex to include all 9 PChs -obvs cos act related only to sex each cha own specif stat so clear only applied to sex so in equality act make sense repsect all 9 char

Answer 23

So undr ea gor dfence In respect of s.13 follows same -Under the EA, the GOR ‘defence’ re section 13 follows the proportionality approach used in sections 15 and 19- s.15 discrim arising from disability 19 is indirect dscrim

Answer 24

In other words, a defendant employer must convince the ET that the any discrimination was a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’ Last point r.a.w its all bc europena convention hr and strasbourg euc of human rights obsses with proprot and bc echr made part of uk law under hr act whe thagt came into force 2nd octo 2000, the uk court uk stat sincethen ea 2010 contained many ref to proprotianoltiy rather than reasonableness.

Answer 25

Once agin debate r.a.w As with s 20, there is debate as to whether sections 13(2), 13(3) and 13(4) and GOR are recognised as ‘official’ defences or merely counter-arguments However, either way, an ET will be reluctant to accept this GOR defence, as was seen in the cases of: (i) Etam plc v Rowan 1989; and (ii) Glasgow City Council v McNab 2007 Wont lose any sleep over that just raise if answer dd q in exam Just more case law to show employment tribunal not easily pursaded to accept a d employers arg that a gor defence applies

Answer 26

(i) Etam plc v Rowan 1989: ``` Mr Rowan (R) applied for a job at an Etam lingerie shop to sell women’s clothing However, his application was turned down and the reason Etam gave him was because he wouldn’t be able to go into the ladies’ fitting rooms R brought a DD claim against Etam re the PCh of sex under s 13 Etam tried to rely on the GOR defence The ET: found for R as R didn’t necessarily have to go into the ladies’ fitting rooms because he could have asked a female worker at Etam to do that ```

Answer 27

U can bring discri claim even if ahvent even wred for day if e.g apply job and turn down like happened

Answer 28

(ii) Glasgow City Council v McNab 2007: Mr McNab (M),an atheist teacher at a Roman Catholic (RC) school run by Glasgow City Council (GCC), applied for the post of Acting Principal Teacher of Pastoral Care GCC did not even consider M for an interview, giving as its reason when M enquired the facts that he was not of the RC faith GCC tried to argue the GOR defence, insisting that the RC Church would have seen being RC as a pre-requisite for the post M claimed DD against GCC re the PCh of religious belief under s13 The ET: found for M and awarded him £2000 because it disagreed with the GCC that being RC was a GOR for the post

Answer 29

Broguht dd in relation protec ch religious belief in favour

Answer 30

The EAT: upheld the ET’s decision, ruling that a local authority has no religious ethos and therefore cannot take advantage of the GOR defence, even re a religious school EAT CONFIRMED

Answer 31

Burden of proof Let’s not forget that we agreed in lectures 1 and 3 that the standard of proof required for all EA discrimination claims favours the claimant S 136(2) states that, in the 1st stage of the proof process, the claimant needs only to convince an ET that there are facts from which the ET could decide that discrimination occurred By contrast, in the 2nd stage of the proof process, the defendant must then leave the ET in no doubt at all that discrimination did not in fact occur

Answer 32

We know that 1 primary reasons feel discirm to much in favour of worker BC B.OP 1st stage all c ned to do PURSADE TRIBUUNAL FACTS WICH COULD TRIBUANL COULD DECIDE= DISCRIM= low threshold Hw bar 2nd proof porces= way higher

Answer 33

In Barton v Investec Securities Ltd 2003, the EAT confirmed this high standard proof for the defendant, requiring the defendant to prove that ‘in no sense whatsoever’ did it discriminate against the claimant NO SENSE WHATSPVER DISCRIM FOR EMPLOYERS- WHY E FEEL HARDER Perhaps reason for that so didff to prood bc word spoken word

Answer 34

However, we’ve also agreed that it can be incredibly difficult for a claimant to satisfy the 1st stage of the proof process, despite the low bar, because finding evidence can prove so hard, as it’s often oral and therefore a case of 1 person’s word against another

Answer 35

The claimant needs to establish a causal link between the LFT and the PCh, whereas a defendant employer can argue the candidate looked great on paper but performed awfully in the interview, and it would be difficult for a claimant to disprove this

Answer 36

The CA accepted this difficulty, and found favourably for the claimant, in our next case

Answer 37

Might eb low bar bc perhaps diff to rpove u might need witness or a cctv cam unless its written. Best case scanerio for c d employer be stupid enough to discrim in writing But more often than not dicirm acts not in writing- hope cctv court behaviour or spoken or theres awitness- but even if is ppl aren’t in great rush to turna gainst employer e.g may turn jobless So c nees toe estbalsihed CAUSAL LINK BTE LFT AND PCH R.A.W Lets say utterly conviced by far ebst cand and spomeon ur opinion nothing as god e.g u ddint do well in int hard to disprove that as u didn’t see how othe epformed so scope for discirm quite ahrd to tackles So lets look at case where c.o.a had sumptha for c hard to rpove DIRECT DISC

Answer 38

Noone v NW Thames Reg. Auth 1988:

Answer 39

Ms Noone, a Sri Lankan national, was 1 of 3 applicants for a vacancy as a microbiologist with the NW Thames Reg. Auth. She believed she’d published more articles and had more experience and qualifications than the other 2 applicants When her application was rejected, Ms Noone brought a DD claim against the NW Thames Reg. Auth. To establish her prima facie case, Ms Noone argued she had been the best qualified candidate The CA: accepted Ms Noone’s arguments to establish her prima facie case of race discrimination

Answer 40

CA: May LJ: ‘It is not often that there is direct evidence of racial discrimination, and these complaints more often than not have to be dealt with on the basis of what are the proper inferences to be drawn from the primary facts. For myself I would have thought that it was almost common sense that, if there is a finding of discrimination and of difference of race and then an adequate or unsatisfactory explanation by the employer for the discrimination, usually the legitimate inference will be that the discrimination was on racial grounds,’ We can therefore use Noone 1988 as our authority for the fact an ET will apply common sense as much as law at the 1st proof stage

Answer 41

Well jnown quot from lord justice may Considered quite dog at time in favour of c – couldn’t really put together hard evidence but just bc there was suspicion and commens sense arg came up with they found in favour They can use no one found in faour of discrim c- all thing sbeing equal- presump of fiscirm unless proving otherswide- b.op in favour of c

Answer 42

Let’s now consider how, once at an ET, a claimant might gather the evidence needed to convince the ET they have more than a prima facie case that they could have been discriminated against

Answer 43

The procedure for gathering evidence used to be set out at s 138 EA, but s 138 was repealed on 6 April 2014

Answer 44

In essence, s 138 used to allow a claimant to ask their employer questions on a prescribed form to try to establish discrimination

Answer 45

The ET was entitled to draw an adverse inference from an employer’s failure to respond to any of the questions, or from an evasive or equivocal answer

Answer 46

Agreed hard part is to prove it Is there way which c can gather info evidence inf aocvurof arg? There used to eb questionnaire precudre under s.138 – but also agred prev that as general rule politically elft wing gov tends to ebf avourable to employees and right wing fav toward semployers. Peraps weren’t hige surprise that the david cam conservative gov was 1 that repealed this questionare procedure So wha used to hapend under s.138 was that u could literally send q as c to defendant employer with a list of q like, what ecneatge staff female , amgers female? Was evry cand ask same quesitone tc, way works if d employer either didn’t answer or v ague thrhn et were entitled to draw an adverse ifnernece e.g that’s a bit doge= idnic of guilt

Answer 47

The claimant had 28 days after serving their ET1 form on both the defendant employer and ET to send the employer the questionnaire

Answer 48

Upon receipt of the questionnaire, the employer then had 8 weeks to respond so as to avoid the ET drawing adverse inferences

Answer 49

David Cameron’s Conservative Government repealed s 138 EA with s 66 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which came into force on 6 April 2014, to ‘reduce the burden on business’

Answer 50

The Government claimed to have ‘consulted with the public’ before abolishing the questionnaire procedure, which seemed a strange claim given that 83% of respondents to the Government’s consultation document in 2012 opposed the abolition

Answer 51

So what would happen – c We know claim form for discirm et1 form under s.3 of et act 1996- from c uses- once they served that form on both d employer and the et under s.137 they then had 28 days to serve q and then upon recipt of q the d employer would have 8 weks to reply But dav cam repealed So fro almost 4 years questionnaire procedurr egone Response public 83% but did it anyway

Answer 52

The old questionnaire procedure has now been replaced with ACAS’ non-statutory guidance

Answer 53

Under this guidance, a worker is still able to ask questions of his employer, but he no longer enjoys the structure and the time limits provided by the standard form, with no direct penalty for failure to comply

Answer 54

However, it’s not all bad news for a worker because: (i) the ET is still entitled to draw an adverse inference from an employer’s failure to respond to any of the questions, or from an evasive or equivocal answer; and (ii) a worker can now ask questions in any format at any time

Answer 55

Hw guidance acas that tribunal shhuld still 1 r.a.w Or a vauge reply to question Almost as godo as s.138 and in some ways releases worker to ask queston anytime when suits them So its no.1 in which c tackles tis incre diff aspect of discrim claim which is prividng tht discrim took place.

Answer 56

S 24 confirms discrimination can still occur even where the person doing the discriminating shares the same PCh as the person being discriminated against (all that matters is that the victim’s PCh is affected)

Answer 57

Therefore, a woman can sexually discriminate against another woman and a muslim can religiously discriminate against another muslim

Answer 58

S 24 is in line with what we saw in lecture 1, namely that motive, or whether discrimination was intentional, is irrelevant and, instead, all that matters is whether the discrimination occurred

Answer 59

So s.24 confirms discrim can still occur r.a.w in toher words woman can seuxla discirma nother woman muslim discim against another m usl So in kine agrred I lec 1 that motive or whether discirm intentionally = irrfelavant

Answer 60

The emphasis is therefore on how the victim actually felt rather than how 3rd parties might have expected the victim to feel For example, if others present felt a discriminatory comment had clearly been meant as a joke, an ET would ignore their views So soemting else agreed r.a.w – partic rel to lec 6 harassment but it rpvains all discrim law thate mpahsis that tribunal palces is how recipient felt not on how other should ah e thugh claimant felt but how c felt.

Answer 61

Lecture 4 Activity 2: Let’s consider the following scenario: Grzegorz was a 61-year-old married man in the year 1985, when the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men Grzegorz went swimming with his 61-year-old wife and was required to pay to use the pool while his wife got in free When he enquired why this was so, the local council which owned the pool told Grzegorz it was because only his wife had reached the state pension age Do we think Grzegorz would have succeeded if he had brought a sex discrimination claim against the local council? At that time in relation to the last q

Answer 62

Answer: The facts in this activity mirror a real case, namely: James v Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) 1990: Mr and Mrs James, both 61, went swimming EBC charged 75 pence per swim but offered free swimming to persons who had reached the state pension age Mr James therefore had to pay while Mrs James didn’t Mr James made a SDA 1975 claim, with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC)’s backing, against EBC The Southampton County Court: found against Mr James because EBC treated equally both men and women not yet of pensionable age Facts in actual case Brought clai m under then sex discrim act The ebc r.a.w

Answer 63

The Court of Appeal: also found against Mr James However, the House of Lords: overturned the earlier decisions and found for Mr James, ruling that the correct question the CC and CA should have considered was the objective 1 of whether Mr James would have received the same treatment as his wife from EBC but for his sex, and the answer had to be yes -Took even further to hol where he won 2 issues- whether law itsle is discrim ?(random)

Answer 64

Perception: Many successful DD claims result from perception stereo-typing and assumptions based on, for example, how people talk, walk or look, or the friends they hang out with For example, an employer might perceive that a worker is of a particular sexual orientation, such as gay, or race

Answer 65

Lecture 4 Activity 3: Let’s consider the following scenario: X and Y are married but work for rival firms Their firms liaised over their concerns about leaks, so they met for talks about what to do They saw the man, X, as the breadwinner Therefore, it was agreed that his firm would keep him on but the woman, Y, ’s firm would dismiss her Do we think Y might successfully bring a sex discrimination claim? 2 companies held meeting what could we do about this we reckon x amount bread winner r.aw Do we tink success?

Answer 66

Answer: Once again, the facts of this activity mirror those of a real case, here the famous perception case of: Skyrail Oceanic Ltd v Coleman 1981: A couple employed by rival firms got engaged, leading to concern about leaks The firms liaised and decided the man was seen as the breadwinner, so the woman should be the 1 to be dismissed 2 days after their marriage, she was fired! The ET: found for woman under the SDA 1975 Real case facts were identical 2 days r.a.w

Answer 67

The CA upheld the ET's decision, ruling that a presumption that men are more likely than women to be the primary supporters of their spouses and children is a perception based on sex Therefore, the dismissal of a woman based on a presumption that husbands are breadwinners and wives are not can, of itself, amount to discrimination under the SDA We can therefore use Skyrail 1981 as our authority for the fact that UK discrimination law provides protection through s 13 DD against ‘preceptive discrimination’ So skyrail is auth r.a.w perceptive notp recpetive

Answer 68

Association: Other successful DD claims result from association For example, if A has lots of lesbian friends, the defendant may presume, by association, that A is also a lesbian

Answer 69

Lecture 4 Activity 4: Let’s consider the following scenario: X’s disabled son, Y, has breathing disorders X asked her employer, Z, for time off to care for Y Z dismissed X, accusing her of using her son to manipulate requests for extra time off Could X bring a disability claim even though s6 says LFT must be re a disabled person? -Agai hers facts So even though herself not disab could she bring claim?- ocne again it’s a case

Answer 70

Answer: Yet again, the facts of this activity mirror those of a real case, here the association case of: Coleman v Attridge Law 2008: Ms Coleman, a secretary working for Attridge Law, had a son who was disabled as he had congenital laryngomalacia (where the larynx can collapse, causing breathing difficulty) She requested and was granted so much time off work that Attridge Law dismissed her, accusing her of using her son to manipulate the firm into granting requests for time off work

Answer 71

S 4 DDA 1975 required LFT to be against a disabled person Since Ms Coleman was not herself disabled, the question was whether the DDA properly incorporated EU Directive 2000/78 Attridge Law argued the DDA could not be interpreted in line with the EU Directive The EAT: found for Ms Coleman but referred the case to the ECJ The ECJ: also found for Ms Coleman, ruling that it did not follow from the relevant provisions of EU Directive 2000/78 that the principle of equal treatment is limited to people who themselves have a disability within the meaning of the Directive On the contrary, the purpose of the EU Directive, as regards employment and occupation, was to combat all forms of discrimination on grounds of disability

Answer 72

We can therefore use Coleman 2008 as our authority for the fact that UK discrimination law provides protection through s 13 DD against ‘associative discrimination’ (ie discrimination of a person because of that person’s association with a disabled person) and the principle of equal treatment is not limited to people who themselves have a disability So how can we use coleman r.aw. U can bring claim on ground of dis on behalf someone else who has disbaility

Answer 73

Lecture 4 Activity 5: Let’s finish today’s lecture by reinforcing all the law that we’ve learned today re s 13 DD by applying it to an imaginary scenario Susan, who currently works as an engineer with Fraser Limited, has been turned down for an internal promotion for the role of Lead Engineer, despite believing she was the best candidate The only other application was from Scott, who has fewer qualifications and less experience than Susan, having worked for Fraser Limited for only 5 years to Susan’s 10.

Answer 74

Exam q Best way to grasp anything is to apply it We know in exam 3 PROB STYLE Q – ALL 3 LIKELY TO BE ON DISCRIM LAW VARIOUS DIFF RPOHIB COND IF HAVE ONE ON DD IT WOULD BE SIMIALR TO THIS- IT WILL BE MORE DETAIL BUT Q STRUCTUIRNG OF Q RUBIC REMARKBLY SIMILAR So r.a.w

Answer 75

Susan overheard a member of the interview panel in the kitchen referring to engineering as ‘a man’s world’, which has served only to convince her further that was not offered the promotion because she’s a woman. Please advise Susan as to: (a) whether she might be able to bring a direct discrimination claim against Fraser Limited; (b) if so, the prospects of success for Susan, including an assessment of whether Fraser Limited might be able to defend her claim; and (c) providing figures where possible, the various elements of any remedies an employment tribunal is likely to award to Susan should her claim be successful.

Answer 76

Facts will be more detail in exam but heres structure In exam- included c even tho haven’t done remedies Lets focus on a and b and lets fo it focusing on our exam structure So what did we agree on our recommed answr structure START – FIRST OF ALL BACKGROUND, DEF, LEGAL POS, OPTIONS ETC – SENSIBLE WY TO ANSWE ANY Q = CONTEXT na dthen up and running- so this is discrim law and in partic direct discrim Seminar- urge us enough to have a go against the clock – 5 mins to read q in exam Only sit here 2 hours in MAY –

Answer 77

another go at this for e.g if we find were quick writers could say we could write out mofre info like stat claim etc or could do it short, so def agre discrim when u treat someone less or unfavourably due to in repstc 1 9 char- LEGAL POS- much easier for claimant , dotn even need to be employer – OPTIONS- always ostrich option find rather avoid dsicrim and just live with it, or might be so appaled and bring discrim claim from affar or stay and bring claim from within – especially 1st 8 element in our agrred answer structure- clock determine how much deltail 50% law 50% appl

Answer 78

2nd venue – employement tribunal applicationacting for susan, s.3 et act et1 form, time limit s.1231 says 3 months from date of alleged discrim act then apply it So time scale – when – say in exam so pick up exact time reference, say within time but encourage to bring claim aspa and use et1 from.

Answer 79

Then next = ELIG- with dscrim law elig not needing to employee etc instead focjusing on protecc ch and prohib conduct – 1st pro ch – MUST BE ATLEAST 2 OF FINTE LIST TO BE DONF S 4 OF EQUALITY ACT – 1 cha – man got job woman not= sex – can take stat book in exam so quicker to find and then in terms of prohib cond probs most diff, in answer discrim but theres only 6 , so basically just run down the 6 so any evidence that susans disabled knows immedialty s.15 rule out s.20 reaosnabel adj

Answer 80

Any evi of harra- no harassment /vicitmisation is where employer makes worker suffer bc worker has complained, nto either of those, doesn’t even seem indirect just seems to be BLATENT DIRECT DISCIM ON FACTS WE HAVE- so only 1 of 6 is s.13 direct discrim – that’s what wed next talk abojut and might want to aply AND MIGHT want to provide def of 13 1 less fav treat o grounds of any of 9 but ehre its sex.

Answer 81

So fro direct dscrim nee to find comp- as further req- s23 privdies bit of detail – also agreed shamone case dangerous for c- bu here maybe she could fo real- bugt need to tell dangers so hypoth might be better cudl sgegst b.op. so in terms of law we would say s.1362 of ea seems to favour worker-

Answer 82

onlhy estab facts with et COULD DECDIED DISCIRM- BARTON 2003 et what d employer needs to estgab no sense whatsoever dscirm -That’s what lae says Int eerms of applying-

Answer 83

arg she has 2 grounds- 1 is that shes better can dof 2 she has more qual more experience shes been there twice as long she just better cand also whats he overheard in ikicthen – better cand easier cos will be written down soemwhee pr brin g in contract whe she started easier to rprorof better cand than over heard – if witness would they eve speak out for her- but on subject of proof what did we agree is the means she will use to try estab her evidence.

Answer 84

It used to be under s.138 quesionare procedure but now itsACAS – good news acas still recommend that if susan were to – if fraiser doesn’t answer tribunal conclude up 2 no good.

Answer 85

So what would be useful at this stage would be answer to include some questions could include some specific q such as confirmation q asre we right in thinkin more qualified, she been there twiceas long, were scot asked same q- why wa it felt scott performed better than susan, is there cctv, and so , wed use acas non stat guidance, as way of putting clients use forward, but in interest of balance still need to also to analyse the likely response of the d, in this case fraiser limited, nee to prove wnon whatsoever was there anu discrim.

Answer 86

What woul they say in relation to amn world comment= deny also what say to scott getting job to susan- say we turned up surely susan but scott was amzing and hse dint and that’s what they try rely. And lathogh weighted on c can be diff to prove disrim.

Answer 87

Nex thing likely awrds- have agred lec 1 – crucially no cap on amount receive discrim law. The only 1 element c will recive any kind of cap is injury to feelings, and well cover that either rnext week or week after. But 1 thing very improtnant 2 main poss. 1 is that they don’t get job that they apply. Other is once in a job they don’t get a promotion that they aoply for. This is apromotion matters bc sometimes when an examq been aboutpromotion I mena c will claim entire salry obvs wont do, if without job and miss they claim salry would receive if got job. But if just missed on promotion all she missed out is additional amount if got promoto she still got her sal so have to be careful in amount she would have applied for.

Answer 88

Last 1 of 8 was to assess the prospects of success for susan, parti cin this scenario ive given us next to no inf, wed be entitled for no infoentitled to say no info but tis kind of we cant really say.. And its dif when u act for disrim claim to advise them cos cant say cos they might turn up at ur law firma nd say I have employer weighted that mean im gonan win, true but problem is diff for c to prove discirm.

Answer 89

So best hope is acas non stat guidance q and answers they rpivde and if we can estab for e.g fraiser lmd only ahs males tope nd that strongly suggest sex discrim but in terms of her overhearing mans world- that gonna be extremely diff- so have to say yes evry chance ud success but on basis bette ruqlifed and ur eprfomanc eintervew wasn’t that bad but cant gauarntee youll succed- that’s how u scued.

Answer 90

Review: Having completed lecture 4, we should now be able to: (i) explain in detail the 1st of the 4 main types of prohibited conduct (PCo), namely: S 13: Direct discrimination; the other 3 main types being: S 19: Indirect discrimination; S 26: Harassment; and S 27: Victimisation and to apply our knowledge of s 13 to a fictitious scenario

Answer 91

Preview: Lecture 5: In lecture 5, we’ll acquire the ability to explain in detail the 2nd of the 4 main types of prohibited conduct (PCo), namely: S 19: Indirect discrimination; and to apply our knowledge of s 19 to a fictitious scenario

Answer 92

Seminar 2: We have an activity to prepare in advance of seminar 2, in which we’ll reinforce our understanding of the 2 of the 6 types of PCo which relate specifically to disability, namely: S 15: Discrimination arising from disability; and S 20: Duty to make (reasonable) adjustments by applying our knowledge of the relevant law to a problem-style question on these 2 types of PCo

Emploment Law lec 4- Prohibited Conduct: Direct Discrimination Flashcards

(116 cards)