Jessica Anderson v CAE Crewing Services Limited

Jessica Anderson v CAE Crewing Services Limited

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by conflating the tests for agency and vicarious liability, failing to properly apply section 109 Equality Act 2010, and providing incomplete reasoning on the substantive disability discrimination claims. The agency and substantive discrimination issues must be remitted for...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ms Jessica Anderson; Respondent: CAE Crewing Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, remitted for redetermination
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Agency, Vicarious Liability, Time Limits, Harassment, Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Agency Vicarious Liability Time Limits Harassment Direct Discrimination +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Jessica Anderson

Appellant

CAE Crewing Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its analysis of agency and vicarious liability under section 109 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal provided sufficient reasoning for its findings on disability discrimination
  3. 3 Whether certain complaints were submitted within time

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by conflating the tests for agency and vicarious liability, failing to properly apply section 109 Equality Act 2010, and providing incomplete reasoning on the substantive disability discrimination claims. The agency and substantive discrimination issues must be remitted for redetermination. The Tribunal did not err in its approach to time limits, except for insufficient reasoning regarding disciplinary proceedings and a final written warning, which are remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, remitted for redetermination

Orders

  • Agency and substantive disability discrimination issues remitted to a new Employment Tribunal for redetermination
  • Complaints regarding disciplinary proceedings and final written warning remitted to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration