Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd (Religion or Belief Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0379_10_2405 (24 May 2011)

Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd (Religion or Belief Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0379_10_2405 (24 May 2011)

The Tribunal correctly identified and applied the law on indirect discrimination, considered both the impact on the claimant and the employer's operational needs, and concluded that the requirement for security guards to remain on site was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal's decision was within its discretion and not perverse.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0379_10_2405
Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Proportionality, Employment Equality (religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
Employment Law Equality Law Indirect Discrimination Religion or Belief Discrimination Proportionality Employment Equality (religion or Belief) Regulations 2003

Case Brief

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's requirement for security guards to remain on site during Friday lunchtimes amounted to indirect discrimination on grounds of religion under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
  2. 2 Whether the employer's provision, criterion or practice was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly identified and applied the law on indirect discrimination, considered both the impact on the claimant and the employer's operational needs, and concluded that the requirement for security guards to remain on site was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The appeal was dismissed as the Tribunal's decision was within its discretion and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed