EAT decision confirms there is no easy way to dismiss 'obsessive' litigious employees
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently clarified its position on workplace victimisation and dismissal in Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd : it restricted the effect of Martin v Devonshires Solicitors  to ensure that employers cannot easily avoid victimisation provisions when dismissing litigious employees.
The purpose of section 27 of the Equality Act is to protect employees from victimisation by their employers. When an employer either dismisses an employee or subjects them to detrimental treatment because they have performed a protected act, such as bringing a grievance, a claim of unlawful victimisation will arise.
Martin had muddied the waters between the protected act and the dismissal: in that case, Miss Martin’s persistent grievances, although in good faith and therefore protected, resulted from paranoid delusions. The EAT concluded that Martin’s dismissal was not based on the protected act, but rather a ‘sufficiently separable’ issue, namely her mental health and the inevitable future claims and costs to the employer which would arise from that…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Winckworth Sherwood briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Winckworth Sherwood
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Winckworth Sherwood
James Lynas, a partner at Winckworth Sherwood specialising in education employment law, highlights easily avoidable human resources errors that can cost schools dear.
Name or shame: complying with the name and charitable status provisions of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014
This note focuses on two key provisions of the Act which deal with the requirement to display the name and charitable status of registered societies.