Victimisation meaning

Employment Appeal Tribunal Judge Murray Shanks stated the tribunal was justified in concluding that Nicolas Toure’s allegation that a colleague used a racial epithet was 'fictional', and that his readiness to forget it in return for promotion was 'tantamount to blackmail', although the tribunal’s rationale for dismissing his victimisation complaint was 'plainly wrong'. He noted the tribunal had been mistaken in stating Toure was not dismissed by Ken Wilkins Print Ltd; yet Toure’s contention that his sacking was retaliation for raising race discrimination 'could not possibly have succeeded', in any event, according to Judge Shanks in a judgment handed down on 17 January 2024...

Matthews v CGI IT UK Ltd [2024] EAT 38 On 25 March 2024, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that Guy Matthews had not been victimised or unfairly dismissed. The tribunal found CGI IT UK Ltd had, after months of efforts to retain him, been left with virtually no alternative but to dismiss, as Matthews persistently alleged—without evidence—that a manager was undermining him. Judge Susan Walker, writing for the three-person panel, described this as a highly unusual matter in which a fair dismissal was upheld despite there being no written warning and no opportunity to appeal, noting the tribunal’s clear factual findings justified treating it as a rare case. Matthews joined CGI, an IT and business consulting services company, in May 2017. He later became a director and consulting expert within a team specialising in 5G technology, reporting to Steve Evans. Around May or June 2020, CGI chose to scale back its 5G ambitions and initiated a redundancy process, placing Matthews’ role at risk, according to the judgment. Following this...

Whitehouse v Ministry of Defence ET 1401357/2022. Employment Judge Adrian Hogarth, in a decision made on 4 April 2025 and released on 9 April 2025, dismissed the Ministry of Defence’s bid to strike out the claim brought by reservist Mr Whitehouse. The department had contended that members of the reserve forces fall expressly outside the scope of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, which confer parity of treatment with full-time staff. Judge Hogarth ultimately concluded that the reservist carve-out does not prevent Whitehouse from proceeding with his case. Whitehouse alleges he faced detriment for highlighting that part-time workers’ entitlement to equal treatment had been breached, he added. While the judge accepted the regulations can be read as excluding his grievances, he considered that express references to carrying out training and other voluntary obligations indicate the exception is narrower than the Ministry had suggested...

The public sector equality duty (PSED) Set out in Part 11 of the Equality Act 2010 (ss 149–159), the public sector equality duty (PSED) comprises a general equality duty applying UK-wide to public bodies listed in Schedule 19 of the EqA 2010, alongside specific duties intended to support delivery of the general duty and enhance transparency. Although the general duty is identical across England, Wales and Scotland, the specific duties made under EqA 2010, s 153 vary. In Wales, listed public bodies must meet particular specific duties that sit alongside the UK-wide general duty. These specific duties bind listed Welsh bodies only. They do not extend to non-devolved public authorities operating in Wales. Under EqA 2010, s 149, the general duty requires public authorities and those exercising public functions to have 'due regard' to the need to: eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other behaviour prohibited by or under the EqA 2010 advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and...

This Practice Note outlines the available resources concerning safeguards and liabilities arising from acts or failures to act that constitute sexual orientation discrimination, or other forms of prohibited conduct linked to sexual orientation. The detail here is intentionally limited, as the principal aim is to point subscribers towards comprehensive materials contained in additional Practice Notes that explore each element in depth. Consequently, treat this Practice Note as an entry point for research; full coverage is provided only in the places signposted below. Its role is to point you forward, not to replace the comprehensive Practice Notes that address each strand of the topic at length, and the links below are where complete information is intended to be consulted and used. The characteristics protected The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) affords protection against discrimination and other prohibited conduct connected to particular listed characteristics a person may have. Some protections apply solely to one such characteristic. Others operate uniformly across all of them, which together are described as ‘the protected...

Practice Note This Practice Note explores why preparing a clear, comprehensive job description and a person specification is a vital and foundational stage in recruitment. Regardless of whether an organisation employs a specialist personnel or HR function, or passes hiring duties to line managers and supervisors, all those taking part in selection and decision-making must understand and apply the essentials of sound practice, especially concerning discrimination and data protection. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual: in how it arranges the process for deciding to whom employment will be offered, or regarding the terms on which employment is offered, or by failing to offer the person employment For further guidance, see Practice Note: Employment events which give rise to discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims. Accordingly, any procedure that invites candidates to submit applications for a vacancy must be fair, consistent, objective, transparent and entirely free from bias. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)...

1 Policy statement The Company is committed to advancing equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). By this we mean: equality: delivering fair treatment and equal opportunity for all employees, workers and job applicants, and eradicating unlawful discrimination; diversity: acknowledging, respecting and valuing the differences in our people’s protected characteristics, backgrounds, skills and experience, and encouraging gender, age and ethnic diversity, alongside diverse physical ability and neurodiversity across our workforce; inclusion: creating a fair, safe workplace for everyone that values difference and enables each person to be themselves, reach their potential and thrive at work. The Company will not unlawfully discriminate against any employee, worker or job applicant on the basis of any protected characteristic recognised by current legislation, namely: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage or civil partnership status; pregnancy and maternity; race (including colour, nationality and ethnic or national origin); religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation...

[ Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: ] The Respondent engaged the Claimant as a [ job title ]. She was based at the Respondent’s premises at [ insert address ], where she was one of only three women employed. [ It was an implied term of the Claimant’s employment contract that the Respondent would not behave in a way calculated or likely to erode the mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee. ] The Claimant contends that the Respondent subjected her to [ a course of ] discrimination, sex-related harassment, harassment of a sexual nature, and victimisation, which encompassed discriminatory and constructive unfair dismissal. On or around [ insert date ], her colleague, [ insert name ], asked her to send him certain sales reports. She informed [ insert name ] that she was in the process of compiling the figures and would supply the full report after lunch. He replied, ‘No need to bite my head off. Is it that...

Insert in para 8.2 of claim form ET1: The Claimant served with the Respondent as a [ insert job title, eg ‘paralegal and then as a trainee solicitor’ ] commencing on [ insert start date of employment, eg 6 September 2021 ] and continuing until [ his OR her OR their dismissal on [ insert date, eg 31 March 2024 ] ]. The Respondent is [ insert brief description of the nature of the Respondent, eg ‘an international law firm’ ]... [ The Claimant alleges that the Respondent subjected [ her OR him OR them ] to [ a course of ] discrimination, harassment and victimisation, which encompassed [ his OR her OR their ] discriminatory and unfair dismissal. ]... Disability The Claimant lives with [ insert details, eg ‘clinical depression and severe dyslexia’ ] and was, throughout the relevant period, a disabled person [ owing to each of these impairments ] for the purposes of section 6(1) of the...

At the outset, it is essential to recognise that the approach to waiving claims varies according to whether the settlement is concluded by a COT3 agreement (Form COT3) facilitated by Acas, or by an agreement made under section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) with confirmation from an independent legal adviser. The distinction is material. In the case of a settlement agreement pursuant to ERA 1996, s 203, the position is plain and uncomplicated. It admits of little ambiguity in practice. Regardless of any express wording, such an agreement cannot validly prevent a claimant from pursuing a later victimisation claim that stems from their having brought the original discrimination proceedings. That outcome follows from ERA 1996, ss 203(1) and (3)(b), which nullify any element of a settlement that does not pertain to the specific proceedings being settled. Accordingly, any provision that purports to settle or waive future victimisation claims, which had not arisen when the agreement was made, would be of no effect and should be treated...