Five things we learnt in employment law this week (17 November)

James Rhodes

18th November 2016
Five things we learnt in employment law this week

 

  1. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain has threatened legal proceedings against Deliveroo if they refuse their riders’ requests for union recognition and to be acknowledged as workers after the recent Uber ruling.
  2. A survey conducted by MacMillan suggests that one in five people diagnosed with cancer experience discrimination from their employers or colleagues on their return to work.
  3. The EAT has held that an employer had not been entitled to rely on an existing final written warning when considering whether to dismiss an employee for further misconduct when the decision to issue the existing warning was “manifestly inappropriate” (Bandara v British Broadcasting Corporation).
  4. The High Court has held that segregation of male and female pupils in a school did not amount to direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. This was because both sexes were treated in the same way so there was no less favourable treatment. Although this is a High Court decision, the same principles are relevant when considering sex discrimination issues in employment law (Interim Executive Board of X School v HM Chief Inspector of Education, Services and Skills).
  5. An Employment Tribunal has ordered Cleveland Police to pay £457,000 in compensation after the force was found guilty of racially discriminating against a former employee (Saddique v The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police).

EmploymentSolicitor.com

We don’t use AI to replace lawyers. We value their experience, and judgment. But some routine legal services can be delivered faster, and better, with AI built into the legal process. Always a ‘human’ senior employment lawyer in the loop, but with routine elements sped up using AI.