2016/10 Associative victimisation claim allowed to proceed (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has allowed a claim of ‘associative victimisation’ to proceed, reversing an Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) judge’s decision to strike it out. Victimisation occurs where someone is subjected to a detriment because of a ‘protected act’ (such as alleging discrimination). In this case, the claimant claimed he had been subjected to a detriment because someone else associated with him had alleged discrimination. The second ET judge to hear the case held that there was not a close enough connection between the claimant and those who made the allegation of discrimination, and struck out the claim. The EAT held that the judge was wrong to find that Mr Thompson was required to show some particular relationship to the person whose protected act was relied upon, and in fact the association could be entirely in the mind of the employer. Association will be a question of fact in each case.This was the first case in the UK to find that it is possible to bring a claim of victimisation by association, and could represent a significant development in UK discrimination law.

Case C-539/15. Age Discrimination

Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with...

Case C-539/15. Age Discrimination

Is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with...

2016/10 Associative victimisation claim allowed to proceed (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has allowed a claim of ‘associative victimisation’ to proceed, reversing an Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) judge’s decision to strike it out. Victimisation occurs where someone is subjected to a detriment because of a ‘protected act’ (such as alleging discrimination). In this case, the claimant claimed he had been subjected to a detriment because someone else associated with him had alleged discrimination. The second ET judge to hear the case held that there was not a close enough connection between the claimant and those who made the allegation of discrimination, and struck out the claim. The EAT held that the judge was wrong to find that Mr Thompson was required to show some particular relationship to the person whose protected act was relied upon, and in fact the association could be entirely in the mind of the employer. Association will be a question of fact in each case.This was the first case in the UK to find that it is possible to bring a claim of victimisation by association, and could represent a significant development in UK discrimination law.

2016/8 A limited company that was a member of an LLP was allowed to bring a claim alleging direct discrimination by the LLP (UK)

Mr Abrams was a member of a limited liability partnership (LLP) and was due to retire. For tax reasons, shortly before retirement Mr Abrams decided to set up a limited company to take his place as a member of the LLP. This was accepted by the LLP. Mr Abrams’s employment by the LLP was stopped and he no longer had a continuing contractual relationship with it. The limited company, as a member of the LLP, was entitled to receive the profit share that Mr Abrams would have received had he continued as a member. It was also agreed that this limited company would supply the services of an appropriate fee-earner to the LLP (which was, in practice, Mr Abrams).When Mr Abrams reached retirement age, the LLP tried to terminate his services on the basis that he had reached retirement age and the LLP objected to Mr Abrams’s limited company continuing to be a member of the LLP.Mr Abrams and his company brought a claim of age discrimination against the LLP at the Employment Tribunal (ET) and the ET had to decide if a limited company could bring such a claim, which was effectively that it had suffered detrimental treatment because of a protected characteristic of someone with whom it was associated. The ET decided it could and the respondent appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

2016/5 Government order to suspend civil servants’ pension payments discriminatory (HU)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently ruled on a Hungarian law suspending payment of civil servants’ pensions for the period during which they are employed in certain areas of the public sector. The ECtHR found this law to be discriminatory as it breaches Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) read in conjunction with Article 1, Protocol 1. Hungary, as the respondent State, is to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and procedural costs and expenses to the applicant, Mr Gyula Fábián. The judgment was delivered on 15 December 2015 and, if not appealed to the Grand Chamber, will cease to be appealable on 15 March 2016.

Case C-531/15. Sex Discrimination

Are the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC applicable...

Case C-531/15. Sex Discrimination

Are the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article 19 of Directive 2006/54/EC applicable...

2016/5 Government order to suspend civil servants’ pension payments discriminatory (HU)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has recently ruled on a Hungarian law suspending payment of civil servants’ pensions for the period during which they are employed in certain areas of the public sector. The ECtHR found this law to be discriminatory as it breaches Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) read in conjunction with Article 1, Protocol 1. Hungary, as the respondent State, is to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and procedural costs and expenses to the applicant, Mr Gyula Fábián. The judgment was delivered on 15 December 2015 and, if not appealed to the Grand Chamber, will cease to be appealable on 15 March 2016.

ECJ 1 October 2015, case C-432/14 (O - v - Bio Philippe Auguste SARL) (“O”), Age discrimination

On 21 December 2010, Mr O, while he was a student, was recruited by Bio Philippe Auguste SARL...