In an interesting ET claim - Plaut v University of Exeter - a Jewish female academic of Ashkenazi heritage argued it was direct race discrimination to dismiss her for shouting at others in circumstances where being an Ashkenazi Jew makes you liable to speak loudly & gesticulate.
The claim failed (though she won an unfair dismissal claim) on the basis that if people thought she shouted at them, then that was their perception & her ethnic origin was irrelevant to that perception.
Alas no indirect discrimination claim was brought, but there's an interesting question about cultural behavioural norms & what account to take of them in misconduct proceedings & when it might be unjustifiable indirect discrimination to ignore them in considering sanction.
Mind you, as an Ashkenazi Jew myself, I'm hopeful that - save from around the Friday night dinner table with older relatives - I'm pretty well versed in not shouting and in reining in my hand gestures!
1/ Judd v Cabinet Office: A case on reasonable adjustments & s.15 EqA in re withdrawing a secondment due to inadequacy of health provision to an employee at medical risk, though 1 where the EAT doesn't really grapple with interesting legal issues bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ The EAT decision is fairly light on facts, but J worked at the Cabinet Office & successfully applied for a secondment in Montenegro. J had 2 significant health episodes in the months before applying. There were concerns about how she'd be treated if recurring in Montenegro.
3/ There were particular concerns about the lack of joined up services between Montenegro & the UK & that the medical authorities there wouldn't have access to J's medical notes. OH suggested sensible precautions re doctor registration, wellbeing planning & contingency planning.
1/ Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Ltd: the EAT considers how the law on s.230 ERA status applies to a director/shareholder of a very small family business.
2/ 2 brothers owned a family landscaping & water feature business. They split the work between them & worked freely without the other being in control of them. They worked hours they chose, took holidays they chose & were free to do other work outside the company.
3/ The brothers were paid an equal "salary" on which they paid PAYE income tax & NICs on accountants' advice for tax reasons. They also paid themselves dividends. They were directors & shareholders of the business. There was no written contract of employment.
Smith v Pimlico Plumbers is back post-lunch. 10 or so minutes of @MichaelFordQC followed by @CasparQC
(the right link this time)
@CasparQC making a big submission that paid EU annual leave rights should carry over to termination when the employer refuses to remunerate annual leave because entitlement to that leave is in dispute. Crucial to the time issue in this case.
Making some very strong effectiveness-type submissions as to why the right should be carried over to termination - claims otherwise annually for small sums, needing to take (unpaid) leave to prosecute, unlikely to receive damages awarded, & in precarious employment positions.
1/ Is tomorrow's CA holiday pay Battle Royale in Smith v Pimlico Plumbers (No. 2) the 1st ever #ukemplaw appeal before an all female CA panel?
2/ Whether it is or isn't it should be a fascinating fight. In the blue corner, the holiday pay dream team of @MichaelFordQC & @CasparQC ably assisting the brilliant Smith v Pimlico ever-present @DstephensonDSC, with Michael & Caspar fresh from being against each other in Harpur.
3/ And in the red corner, is #ukemplaw legend, Chris Jeans. I recall seeing him as a pupil in my 1st visit to the EAT in what ended up as Serco v Lawson. A truly, mesmerisingly, unforgettably brilliant advocate.
1/ Walsh v Network Rail: A rare EAT outing for the flexible working provisions. An agreement to attend a flexible working request appeal outside the decision period wasn't an agreement to extend the decision period. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ W submitted a flexible working request under the ERA Part 8A on 11.2.19. It was rejected on 7.3.19 & his employer gave him the right to appeal. Whilst the 3-month statutory decision period was due to end on 10.5.19, the parties agreed to hold the appeal on 1.7.19.
4/ Notwithstanding that schedule, a week before the appeal hearing W presented an ET claim on the basis that the flexible working request hadn't been dealt with reasonably, had been determined on incorrect facts & hadn't concluded within the statutory decision period.
1/ Slade & Ors v Biggs & Ors: A case worth reading just for the awful facts, but also with detailed analysis of s.207A TULRCA looking at double counting & proportionality + a new 4-stage test, with a little grossing up question tacked at the end bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ Ms Biggs & Ms Stewart were employed by a company operating Woodlands Castle & Maunsel House, Somerset venues used for weddings & other big events, both owned by eccentric baronet Sir Benjamin Slade.
(The below comes from his Wikipedia entry & shows his, erm, eccentricity).
3/ In 2017, both Cs became pregnant. The ET found Sir Benjamin found this highly inconvenient & decided to dispense with their services by engineering their departure by making their lives deliberately difficult to persuade them to resign.