Court of Appeal confirms post-termination victimisation is unlawful
By Mary Clarke
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that post-termination victimisation is prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. Its decision brings welcome clarification to this issue following the conflicting decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the cases of Rowstock Ltd v Jessemey and Onu v Akwiwu. The Court of Appeal has found that the Equality Act 2010 contains a drafting error in failing to explicitly make post-termination victimisation unlawful but that it is clear that the draftsman and Parliament had intended to outlaw this type of conduct.
We reported on the conflicting case law in our earlier article, ‘EAT sends out confusing messages about post-employment victimisation’. In the March 2013 Jessemey case, the EAT found that while it was ‘highly unlikely’ that Parliament intended to omit protection for post-employment victimisation, it had done exactly that and therefore such conduct was not prohibited. In May 2013, however, in Onu, the EAT found that the Equality Act 2010 could be interpreted as prohibiting post-termination victimisation.
The cases of Jessemey and Onu were considered by the Court of Appeal together. The court began by reviewing the pre-Equality Act 2010 case law and, in particular, the case of Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc, which authoritatively determined that victimisation of former employees was unlawful. The Court of Appeal also considered the pre-Equality Act regulations relating to sexual orientation, religion/belief and age and noted that this legislation also made post-termination victimisation expressly unlawful. The Court of Appeal said ‘the upshot… is that at the time that the 2010 act was drafted it was well-established that post-employment victimisation was unlawful’…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from DLA Piper
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from DLA Piper
The Australian Taxation Office released a draft ruling on the Goods and Services Tax treatment of bitcoin transactions on 20 August 2014.
DLA Piper’s ‘Life sciences: patent extension strategies and antitrust global update’ video covers global antitrust and competition issues including product hopping and reverse payment patents.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Regulators are ramping up the pressure in the aftermath of recession, leaving firms to compete for compliance and restructuring work
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.