Height Requirement for Police is Indirectly Discriminatory against Women
Published 24 November 2017
Is the Greek government's regulation imposing the same minimum height requirement to join the police of 170 cm for both men and women unjustifiable indirect discrimination?
Yes, is the long and short of it, held the CJEU in Ypourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton v Kalliri(1) . The minimum height requirement had been found to be indirectly discriminatory against women by the Greek court. The CJEU(2) held that it could not be justified simply on the basis of it being either appropriate or necessary for the objective that it purported to achieve, ensuring that police officers had the necessary physical capability for the job. Read more Daniel Barnett.
Judge sues over lack of whistleblowing protection
A judge who has spoken out over the impact of austerity on the justice system has taken a test whistleblowing case to the appeal court.
Claire Gilham, a district judge, who warned about courtroom dangers including death threats, violent claimants and hostage-taking, is fighting employment tribunal rulings that do not class judges as “workers”.
Denying judges worker status removes their entitlement to the standard legal protections granted to whistleblowers(3) to make disclosures in the public interest.
Gilham’s experience in Warrington county court of the worst strains inside the family court system reflect wider concerns about the pressure imposed by an influx of unrepresented claimants. Read more The Guardian.
Can sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978(4) protect embassies from Employment Tribunal claims brought by domestic staff in the UK?
No, held the Supreme Court in its unanimous judgment in Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Anor(5) .
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the EAT. Ms Janah and Ms Benkharbouche were purely domestic workers in the UK embassies in London of Libya and Sudan respectively. Some claims were based on domestic English rights (unfair dismissal), others derived from EU law (discrimination, harassment). Read more Daniel Barnett
Monarch collapse: union launches legal action over redundancies
Unite seeks compensation for more than 1,800 staff, saying company broke law on notice period.
The Unite union has launched legal action on behalf of more than 1,800 Monarch staff who were laid off, in a move that could add millions to the taxpayers’ bill for the collapse of the airline(6) . Unite, which represents engineers and cabin crew who worked for the airline, said the company had broken the law by failing to consult on redundancies.
It has also emerged that some staff were told to call a premium-rate phone line to hear news of their redundancy, with some billed almost £40 for the call. The administrators, KPMG(7) , have since pledged to reimburse the costs of the calls.
Instead of the obligatory 45-day notice period, KPMG made 1,858 Monarch staff redundant on Monday. The accountancy firm was called(8) in more than a month ago by Monarch bosses to consider whether the airline should be wound up, before it was put into administration on Monday morning. Read more The Guardian.
Man living with disabilities takes employment dismissal case to the Court of Appeal
Brian Rochford, 53, is bringing the case against his former employer WNS Global Services. It will be heard in the Court of Appeal on Wednesday 4th October 2017 following earlier hearings at an Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal
The case will hear an important principle of law which has never been previously addressed by the Court of Appeal.
Law firm Leigh Day, who are representing Mr Rochford, say the case will address whether it can be fair to dismiss an employee for refusing to participate in discrimination(9) against them.
Mr Rochford’s legal team argue that unless earlier findings by the Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) are overturned employers could routinely profit from their own acts of discrimination(10) by simply dismissing staff who declined to accept discriminatory treatment. Read more Leigh Day.
1. CURIA - Documents [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=195664&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1122396
2. Anonymous. EUROPA - Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) [Internet]. European Union. 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en
3. Paul Jackson [Internet]. Castle Associates Ltd. 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://castleassociates.org.uk/ask-the-expert/profile/paul-jackson
4. Participation E. State Immunity Act 1978 [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/33
5. uksc-2015-0063-judgment.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0063-judgment.pdf
6. Monarch Airlines collapse: UK’s biggest peacetime repatriation under way | Business | The Guardian [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/02/monarch-airlines-flights-cancelled-as-airline-goes-into-administration
7. KPMG | Business | The Guardian [Internet]. [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/kpmg
8. correspondent GTT. Monarch collapse: union launches legal action over redundancies. The Guardian [Internet]. 2017 Oct 4 [cited 2017 Nov 17]; Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/04/union-launches-legal-action-over-monarch-airline-redundancies
9. Disability Discrimination [Internet]. Castle Associates Ltd. 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://castleassociates.org.uk/support-centre/disability-discrimination
10. Discrimination in the workplace [Internet]. Castle Associates Ltd. 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 17]. Available from: https://castleassociates.org.uk/support-centre/discrimination-workplace