In the latest edition of our ‘Need To Know’ employment and HR newsletter, we cover the success of whistleblowing claims where the decision-maker did not know about the disclosure, whether a ‘right to disconnect’ is the answer to work-life balance in the digital world and the Government’s calls for evidence to reform the fit note process.
- Whistleblowing: can the claimant succeed in a detriment claim where the decision-maker did not know about the disclosure?
- Work-life balance in the digital world – Is a ‘right to disconnect’ the answer?
- Not fit for purpose: HM Government calls for evidence to reform the fit note process
We also have included our usual HR Bullets – which cover other significant employment law updates from the past month.
HR Bullets
- An employment tribunal ordered a Council to pay £58,344 to a suspended social worker accused of posting anti-transgender content online; Meade v (1) Westminster City Council, (2) Social Work England (ET Case No 2200179/2022, 2211483/2022).
- The High Court held that a school’s prohibition of ritual prayer neither interfered with a Muslim pupil’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Art. 9 ECHR, nor constituted indirect religious discrimination contrary to s.85 EqA 2010; R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin).
- The EAT held it was reasonably arguable that a tribunal had jurisdiction to consider claims against US-based respondents who did not employ the claimants; TwistDX Ltd & Ors v Armes & Ors [2024] EAT 45.
- The EAT held that a tribunal’s assessment of whether deductions from wages were ‘sufficiently similar’ and ‘sufficiently temporal’ to form part of a ‘series of deductions’ for the purposes of the time limit applying to a series of authorised deductions under ERA 1996 was wrong; British Airways Plc v Mello and Ors [2024] EAT 53.
- The EAT overturned a tribunal’s decision that it had jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal and discrimination claims brought by a seafarer employed on vessels operating in international waters as the tribunal had failed to distinguish between international and territorial jurisdiction; Stena Drilling PTE Ltd v Smith [2024] EAT 57.
- The EAT held that a tribunal erred in failing to determine a claim of discriminatory constructive dismissal as it was part of the pleaded case before it, despite it not being included in the agreed list of issues; Z v Y [2024] EAT 63.
- The EAT ruled that although the claimant’s conduct arising from a disability was only a minor contributing factor to a decision made by the respondent, this could still amount to discrimination arising from a disability under s.15 EqA 2010; Bodis v Lindfield Christian Care Home [2024] EAT 65.
- The EAT held that a tribunal erred by dismissing a claimant’s claims against individual respondents brought under s.110 EqA 2010 on the basis that their discriminatory acts, for which another respondent (the employer) was found to be liable, were misguided attempts to address a complex situation; Baldwin v Cleves School & Ors [2024] EAT 66.