Immigration status does not equate to race
Two migrant domestic workers from Nigeria, who suffered abuse, exploitation and ill treatment at the hands of their UK employers, brought claims of direct and indirect race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal (ET). One initially succeeded in her claim of direct race discrimination and the other lost both claims. Both cases were appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), which held that the claimants had not been directly or indirectly discriminated against because of their nationality/race. The cases were appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the EAT’s decisions.
Under the Equality Act 2010, direct race discrimination occurs where, because of race (including nationality), an employer treats an employee less favourably than it treats or would treat others. Indirect race discrimination occurs where: a) an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) to an employee who is of a particular racial group; b) the employer applies that PCP to persons not of the same racial group as the employee; c) the PCP puts persons of the employee’s racial group at a particular disadvantage when compared to other persons; d) the particular employee is also placed at a disadvantage; and e) the employer cannot justify the PCP by showing it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Winckworth Sherwood briefing.
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.