Employer not liable for discriminatory act of subcontractor’s employee
Under the Equality Act, an employer is liable not only for the discriminatory acts of its own employees, but may also be liable as principal for discriminatory acts carried out by its agents. Over the years, there has been some debate about when someone will be regarded as an ‘agent’ for these purposes. This issue has been revisited in Kemeh v Ministry of Defence.
The claimant was a cook in the British Army. During a posting in the Falkland Islands, he was subjected to two racially abusive comments: one by his line manager and one by a civilian employee of a subcontractor. When the claimant brought race discrimination complaints, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) accepted liability for the actions of the line manager but denied liability for the actions of the subcontractor’s employee. The question for the Court of Appeal was whether the subcontractor’s employee could be regarded as the MoD’s ‘agent’ so that it was liable for the discriminatory comment as principal…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells 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 Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump