Does the Equality Act 2010 cover post-employment victimisation? (Yes)
In July 2013, Walker Morris reported on the outcome of the case of Onu v Akwiwu, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the Equality Act covers post-employment victimisation. This conflicted with a parallel EAT decision in Jessemey v Rowstock, in which the EAT found that it did not.
Having heard both cases together (although giving a judgment in the latter case only), the Court of Appeal has now ruled that post-employment victimisation is indeed covered by the Equality Act. The issue arose out of unclear drafting in the Equality Act.
The act protects against post-employment discrimination and harassment but, on the face of it, does not protect against post-employment victimisation. In fact, the act seems expressly to state that post-employment victimisation is not covered. The explanatory note for this part of the act interprets this as meaning that post-employment victimisation is to be dealt with under separate ‘victimisation provisions’, but it is unclear what these ‘provisions’ are…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Winckworth Sherwood 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 Winckworth Sherwood
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Winckworth Sherwood
The EAT considered whether an employee who said she was too ill to resign for 18 months and who received 39 weeks’ sick pay during that period had affirmed her contract.
It is possible for employers to defend unfair dismissal claims arising from inappropriate use of social media even if the misconduct is not work-related.