Viewing entries tagged
Burden of proof

Comment

James v Coedffranc Community Council

An Employment Tribunal has found that an applicant for a park attendant role was directly discriminated against because of their age. It is a reminder of the benefit of prepared and scripted interviews, and the dangers of unscripted ones.

Comment

Fennell v Foot Anstey LLP

The EAT says that it was not age discrimination to demote a poor performing partner in a law firm.

Dippenaar v Bethnal Green and Shoreditch Education Trust

An experienced teacher brought claims of unfair dismissal and indirect age discrimination on the basis that she was forced out of her role due to the cost of her employment compared to the cost of employing more junior teachers.

Reynolds v CLFIS

The EAT says: don't just look at whether the decision maker discriminated - also those who might have influenced the decision maker.

Killen v Brunel Univeresity

The EAT overturned a ruling that an employee suffered age discrimination when a younger, less qualified person was appointed to a position in a redundancy situation.

Reynolds v CLFIS

The ET finds no discrimination when decision maker didn't discriminate, but was influenced by others who might have discriminated.

Gimson v Telegraph

A sketch writer for the Daily Telegraph fails in his "implausible" age discrimination claim.

James v Gina Shoes Ltd

58 year old production manager told "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" wins age discrimination claim on appeal.

 

Dixon v Croglin Estate Co Ltd

Gamekeeper who lost "his whole life" after being dismissed for being "set in his ways" wins £110k in age discrimination claim (including aggravated damages).

Gay v Sophos Plc

An employee who was unfairly dismissed, had not been subjected to age discrimination.

Mott MacDonald v Rivkin

Finding of age discrimination made on basis that witness had lied and that in those circumstances the employer could not, apparently as a matter of law, satisfy the law on the burden of proof.

Beck v CIBC (EAT)

The EAT upheld an ET's decision that a 42-year-old banker had suffered unlawful age discrimination because of a bank's use of the word "younger".