In today’s Observer, Sir Stuart Rose, the CEO of M&S,  is quoted as saying that women “have never had it so good” and that “Apart from the fact that you’ve got more equality than you ever can deal with, the fact of the matter is that you’ve got real democracy and there really are no

The barristers’ chambers Cloisters is publicising the case of Fareham College v Walters, in which it was held that an employer who dismisses an employee, having failed to make reasonable adjustments, is liable for disability discrimination. This gives a new angle for claimants who are prevented by Lewisham v Malcolm from arguing that a dismissal constitutes disability-related discrimination.

The regular readers of this blog will remember this post back in March in which I discussed a TUPE case that I have been running at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I can confirm that the hearing took place yesterday in front of Judge Hand QC. I coped well with some difficult questions from him but judgment was reserved so it will be

Last week, the House of Lords ruled in the case of McConkey v The Simon Community, concerning the Northern Irish law against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, with whom three other Law Lords agreed, held that a statutory exclusion of political opinions supporting the use of violence meant that it would be wrong to

Like dark matter, dark law is not possible to observe directly but its existence can be detected by the gravitational forces that it exerts on visible law, which are not always straightforward. Sometimes it appears as a negative, as in the case of Mercy v Northgate, which is authority for the proposition that a tribunal is not required to find bad

The dust is now beginning to settle following the publication of the Equality Bill a month ago. Not surprisingly, the most attention has been focused on provisions which allow positive discrimination to be used as a tie-breaker in recruitment, where there are two equally well qualified candidates. Much of the criticism has been ill thought out and

As I have been discussing unfair dismissal, it is appropriate to flag up the case of Compass Group v Okoro, which appeared on the Employment Appeal Tribunal website today. It resolves a conflict in the literature between a line of cases which indicates that, when an act of gross misconduct has been admitted, no further investigation by the

The range of reasonable responses test means an employer has a lot of leeway in dismissing its employees for misconduct. This makes it impossible in practice to run a ‘de minimis’ argument and suggest, for example, that a theft of something small in value can never be a dismissible offence. Furthermore, it follows that there

I have had some more thoughts about why a breach of the impied term of trust and confidence can never result in a fair dismissal. My previous post notes that a breach of the implied term is defined as conduct which is likely to destroy or seriously undermine trust but there is a further part to the test,

There has recently been a spate of judgments from the Employment Appeal Tribunal which have recapitulated trite principles such that there has been little of interest to report. This has all changed with the remarkable case of Bournemouth University v Buckland, which reaches two notable conclusions. Firstly, it disapproves three other EAT authorities which state

Given the emphasis in the case law, a person could be forgiven for thinking that unfair dismissal law is all about procedure. However, for those new to the area, the approach taken by tribunals can be confusing. Sometimes it seems as though tiny breaches in procedure can be blown up out of all proportion while, at other times, a