Employment Appeal Tribunal decision on disability discrimination, reasonable adjustments, and Sentinel rail testing. The appeal succeeded in part, with remittal against Network Rail.
The EAT held that counsel to a Scottish public inquiry was neither a holder of public office nor a worker, so the discrimination claims failed for lack of jurisdiction.
The EAT dismissed an appeal in a sex discrimination and unfair dismissal case, holding that the tribunal properly assessed PCP justification and could weigh the claimant’s own hardship and responses.
The respondent's placement of the claimant on restricted duties and intrusive questioning were acts of direct disability discrimination, harassment, and unfavourable treatment arising from disability, not justified by any legitimate aim or proportionate means. The respondent failed to conduct a proper risk assessment, relied on stigma and misconceptions about HIV, and did not consider less restrictive alternatives. The conduct caused significant injury to feelings and was aggravated by the respondent's disclosure of the claimant's diagnosis without consent.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was subjected to harassment related to her nationality by Ms. Freeman on 4 November 2022 and by Ms. Fitzsimmons on 31 December 2022, including remarks linking the claimant's alleged misconduct to her Brazilian nationality. The dismissal was found to be an act of harassment but not direct discrimination. Other complaints were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or being out of time. Victimisation was not established as there was no material link between the protected act and the dismissal.
The Employment Tribunal upheld two race-harassment complaints by Ms R Tapping and dismissed the remainder of her discrimination and victimisation claims.
The EAT held that pre-transfer pay claims failed under section 41 of the Equality Act, but post-transfer indirect race discrimination claims succeeded.
Smith & Anor v Manchester City Council [2025] EWHC 2987 (KB) (18 November 2025)
Appeal dismissed in a fostering case involving evangelical Christian claimants. The High Court upheld the council’s refusal to progress their application.
The EAT held that the tribunal erred by not properly assessing whether a colleague’s sexual harassment occurred in the course of employment under section 109 EqA 2010.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Leicester City Council’s appeal, upholding findings that its disciplinary action against Mrs Parmar amounted to direct race discrimination.