Victimisation

Authorities (10)

• Barclays Bank plc v Kapur [1991] ICR 208 [judgment]
  Lord Griffiths

  Discrimination; time limits; a 'continuing act' distinguishes a policy or regime from a one-off decision.

• Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd [1999] ICR 100
  The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President), Mr D J Jenkins MBE

  Victimisation; EU law requires protection against victimisation even after the employment relationship has ended.

• Paul v Newham London Borough Council [2002] IRLR 24
  The Honourable Dr William Morris OJ, Judge Birtles, Mrs M McArthur

  Discrimination; victimisation; a bad reference given because of a previous discrimination claim is unlawful.

• Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] IRLR 285 [judgment]
  Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

  Discrimination; detriment; 'detriment' is what a reasonable worker would view as a disadvantage.

• Derbyshire v St Helens MBC [2007] ICR 841 [judgment]
  Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lady Hale, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

  Victimisation; honest belief; an employer's 'honest belief' they are acting reasonably is not a defence if the act causes detriment.

• Derbyshire v St Helens MBC [2007] ICR 841 [judgment]
  Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lady Hale, Lord Carswell, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

  Victimisation; honest belief; an employer's 'honest belief' they are acting reasonably is not a defence if the act causes detriment.

• Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [2011] IRLR 352
  Lord Justice Underhill (President), Mr D Evans CBE

  Victimisation; dismissal; dismissal was for the *manner* of the complaints (false/mental illness), not the complaints themselves.

• Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd [2013] IRLR 773; UKEAT/0007/12/SM [judgment]
  HHJ Hand QC

  Victimisation; protected acts; dismissing an employee for having brought numerous unfounded but good-faith discrimination grievances and claims was victimisation — the Martin v Devonshires 'separable features' escape route is exceptional.

• Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd [2014] IRLR 361 [judgment]
  Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Lord Justice Ryder, Lord Justice Underhill

  Victimisation; post-employment; the Equality Act prohibits victimisation even after employment has ended.

• Deer v University of Oxford [2015] ICR 1213; [2015] IRLR 481; [2015] EWCA Civ 52 [judgment]
  Underhill LJ, Ryder LJ, Sir Timothy Lloyd

  Discrimination; victimisation; limitation; continuing acts. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the two-stage burden of proof under s.136 EqA 2010 (the Igen v Wong approach) applies equally to victimisation claims. On limitation, the Court clarified that where acts said to constitute victimisation are discrete and not linked by a common discriminatory policy or state of affairs, each must be assessed individually for time-limit purposes; a 'continuing act' requires an act extending over a period, not merely a series of separate acts with similar characteristics.