Hogan Lovells partner comments on ruling that post-termination victimisation is unlawful
Elizabeth Slattery, a partner in Hogan Lovells’ employment team, has commented on a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that post-termination victimisation is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 in Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd — resolving conflicting Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions on the point.
Slattery said: ‘The Court of Appeal felt able to imply a prohibition on post-termination victimisation into the Equality Act, despite clear wording to the contrary, because it was patently obvious that the failure to prohibit it was a drafting error. The fact that the UK would be in breach of its obligations under EU law if post-termination victimisation was not unlawful was also a significant factor.’
The claim involved someone who was refused a reference because he had brought proceedings for age discrimination following his dismissal. The tribunal and EAT both found that post-termination victimisation was not unlawful under the Equality Act. Section 108, which deals with post-termination victimisation, prohibited discrimination and harassment but did not prohibit victimisation. Section 108(7) expressly provides: ‘But conduct is not a contravention of this section in so far as it also amounts to victimisation of B by A.’
The Court of Appeal accepted that ‘on a natural reading of the relevant provisions… post-termination victimisation is not prohibited’. However, there were a number of factors that indicated that this was not the result that the draftsman intended:
- Post-termination victimisation was unlawful when the Equality Act was enacted;
- There was no indication that the Equality Act was intended to change the law;
- The Explanatory Notes to the act indicate that post-termination victimisation was intended to be proscribed;
- The UK would be in breach of its obligations under EU law if post-termination victimisation was not unlawful; and
- There was no rational basis for treating post-termination victimisation differently from post-termination discrimination or harassment.
The failure to proscribe post-termination victimisation was therefore a drafting error. It was possible to imply a prohibition on post-termination victimisation into the Equality Act: this was consistent with the act’s fundamental principles and would represent the draftsman’s intentions. Section 108 should therefore be read as giving effect to the EU obligation to proscribe post-employment victimisation, regardless of section 108(7).
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