1/ Is anyone else intrigued why the EHRC Report didn't consider whether the Labour leadership's interference in antisemitism investigations to a far greater extent than any other area of complaint was direct rather than indirect discrimination?
2/ That would, of course, require investigation into motivation in interference: did something about these antisemitism complaints explain that disparity? Perhaps a difficult issue for the EHRC to determine, but one which would provide for a far more powerful & damning outcome.
3/ In making that analysis, it's worth reminding ourselves that in a court a party asserting direct discrimination needs only to show facts from which a court could properly conclude the party's actions were motivated by the Jewish religion or ethnicity.
4/ That needs not be the sole motivation. An effective cause suffices. The burden would then shift & it would be for the party to show it was in no sense whatsoever motivated by those factors in the decisions on how to treat complaints of antisemitism - a tall order.
5/ My 2nd, far more trivial point concerns the EHRC list of cases considered when looking at whether actions were done in the course of an authorised function rather than in a private capacity. The case missing is the most recent & best on this question: Forbes v LHR Airport
6/ If anyone from the EHRC wants to brush up on what it says, here's my thread on Forbes:
1/ Where #ukemplaw-yers are confronted with issues of illegality, today's Supreme Court judgment in Stoffel v Grondona is required reading, applying a common sense approach to Patel v Mirza, with a real emphasis on the integrity of the legal process. supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…
2/ I'll leave others to read the facts (you really need a diagram). What's important is that the Court endorsed Lord Toulson's 3-part test, applied it in a simple common-sense way & explained there's no need to go to part (c) where a+b favours rejecting the illegality defence.
3/ What's particularly useful is the Court's highlighting of the need at parts (a) & (b) to focus on the impact of allowing/rejecting the defence on the integrity of the legal process. Will allowing this illegal actor to bring their claim really have an impact?
In Lyfar-Cisse v Brighton & Sussex Uni Hospitals NHS Trust, an old friend revisits the EAT for a 3rd time (4th if you add in her involvement in Kalu), this time on apparent bias and time limits. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f994d8c…#ukemplaw
2/ The apparent bias case stemmed from a wing member hearing 2 of L-C's claims against the Trust. It wasn't something that caused L-C concern at the time - she made no recusal application & waived the right to object - but she changed her mind after losing.
3/ The EAT (Lord Fairley - think it is his 1st EAT judgment & an excellent one at that) applied the fair minded & informed observer test from Porter v Magill & had no doubt that apparent bias was not made out. In any event, she freely waived the right to object.
1/ Ryan v South West Ambulance Service is a fascinating EAT judgment for everyone who loves to ponder on Essop. It's a beautifully crafted judgment as well as HHJ Tucker's 2nd effort in 2 months to improve us all as practitioners. A real advantage of an ex-EJ being in the EAT.
3/ The case involves a 67-year-old employed in education/learning development roles. The Respondent put in place a Talent Pool policy. Advantages of being in the talent pool (TP) were additional training & (relevantly) that some managerial appointments picked solely from the TP.
THREAD 1/ The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (ET(CRP)(EC:ERP)(A) Regs 2020 for short!) are here. I've read them so you don't have to #ukemplawlegislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1003…
2/ Changes to the 2013 ET Rules & accompanying regs come into force on 8 Oct. Changes to the ACAS EC Rules come into force on 1 Dec & apply when notification occurs on or after that date.
The new Regs include a number of noteworthy provisions, set out in order in this thread.
3/ First, they widen the judicial pool. Given the limits on in person hearing space, I presume that this will mainly be used for CVP/telephone hearings & mainly to clear out the simpler stuff rather than for lengthy trials, but someone reading will correct me if that's wrong.
1/If an ET accepts a man has had paranoid delusions for 4 years that a Russian gang is out to get him, is he disabled? Not necessarily, said the EAT in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital. I'm not convinced the EAT came out with the right answer. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f58d6ee…#ukemplaw
2/ S was a sales exec. Following a short relationship with a Ukrainian woman, he started having paranoid delusions that a group of linked Russians were out to get him. Those delusions started in around May 2013 & continued to Sept '17 when S was dismissed after signing off sick.
3/ S said the delusions impacted him in various ways - sleep deprivation, neglect of friends, timekeeping/attendance issues, personal hygiene, attendance to his personal mail. He was supported by the opinion of a joint medical expert & a psychiatrist.
1/ #Uber Supreme Court occasional thread: 3 features to limb (b): 1) Contract to do work for another; 2) personally; 3) not in customer relationship. These are the features required by Parliament for entitlement to minimum wage. #ukemplaw
2/ Lord Leggatt is concerned about the provisions against contracting out. @DinahRoseQC makes clear those provisions (s.49 NMWA) don't impact on the interpretation of whether an arrangement falls within limb (b), but only where the contract does fall within that relationship.
3/ The starting point must be the contract, with parties free to enter into an agreement outside of limb (b). There's no warrant for adopting a broad construction of limb (b) or a special approach to interpretation of contract (the batter between CA majority & minority).