Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The case summaries below are not official or authoritative. Unless otherwise noted, cases were heard by a panel of 5 judges. Cases involving Scots law are highlighted in orange. Cases involving Northern Irish law are highlighted in green. List of judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered in 2009
Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe is a UK employment and discrimination case brought by Maya Forstater against the Center for Global Development (CGD). [1] [3] The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that gender-critical views are capable of being protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal further clarified ...
Just because more women than men worked beyond 65 did not mean there was discrimination against men, because the difference was purely based on age. The correct approach is to look at the advantaged group, rather than the disadvantaged, though R (Seymour-Smith) v Secretary of State for Employment left open a ‘disadvantage-led approach’.
ii) The middle band of between £5,000 and £15,000 should be used for serious cases, which do not merit an award in the highest band. iii) Awards of between £500 and £5,000 are appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence.
The supreme court seems to see this as something that should be done on a case-by-case basis." [13] John O'Doherty, the director of Northern Ireland's largest support organisation for LGBT people, the Rainbow Project, said "We believe this is direct discrimination for which there can be no justification. We will, however, take time to study ...
The cross-party committee is considering whether discrimination and ageist stereotyping is preventing older people from participating fully in society and the case being made for an Older People ...
Ahmad v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 126 is a UK labour law and UK constitutional law case on race and religious discrimination.It upholds the view that special allowances do not need to be made by employers for people who want to follow particular religious practices, because people are free to choose their jobs.
So the Employment Appeal Tribunal was upheld. Further, the Tribunal was right to construe ‘justifiable’ in Sex Discrimination Act 1975, section 1(1)(b)(ii), to mean an objective balance between the condition’s discriminatory effect the employer’s reasonable needs. But the Tribunal had gone about the balancing exercise wrongly.