In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we look at upcoming legislative changes aimed at protecting and assisting those in the workforce with family and caring responsibilities, the Treasury Committee’s latest inquiry into Sexism in the City, and an EAT decision in respect of reasonable adjustments.
- All change in April – Carer’s Leave, Flexible Working and Redundancy Protections
- Sexism in the City: Endemic misogyny in the financial services industry
- Redeployment, Trial Periods and Reasonable Adjustments
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- A Christian actor was dismissed from the role of a lesbian character in a play following a social media storm over her beliefs posted online that homosexuality is a sin. It was held that there had been no direct religion or belief discrimination or harassment, since she was terminated “for commercial reasons”; Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (T/A Global Artists) and another [2024] EAT 30
- The EAT upheld a tribunal’s decision that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee who worked on a super-yacht which had never actually ever entered UK waters, but the employee’s duties began and ended in the UK and she had a home here; Yacht Management Co Ltd v Gordon [2024] EAT 33
- Failing to attach the grounds of resistance to a Notice of Appeal, as was then required by the regulations, was more than a “minor error” under rule 37(5) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (SI 1993/2854) and, therefore, the EAT could not extend time for the Claimant to present their appeal; Melki v Bouygues E&S Contracting UK Ltd [2024] EAT 36
- So long as a sufficient causal link can be established between the difference in pay and a factor unrelated to the difference in sex between the claimant and the comparator, evidence of the subjective thought processes of the decision maker of an employer is not essential to establish a material factor defence; Scottish Water v Edgar [2024] EAT 32
- A university lecturer with ADHD who was repeatedly refused promotion to a higher lectureship grade lost an appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal to dismiss the substantial part of his claim against his former employer; Pipe v Coventry University Higher Education Corporation [2024] EWCA Civ 191
- An agency worker sent home mid-way through a shift was not suspended or entitled to suspension pay and there was no overarching “agency relationship” with the hirer that was capable of subsisting beyond individual assignments; Donkor-Baah v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust and others [2024] EAT 23
- The EAT has held that it was unlawful to refuse to allow a disabled litigant in person to record a three-day preliminary hearing. The adjustment requested was very unlikely to impact on the proceedings but was likely to assist the appellant in resisting the respondents’ strike-out application; Abanda Bella v Barclays Execution Services Ltd and ors [2024] EAT 16
- The ability to claim for unfair dismissal under section 47B(1A) is limited and will only arise if it is not possible for an employee to claim under section 103A of the ERA 1996; Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] EAT 29