EMP6
Victimisation
Eligibility à Time Limit = 3 months LESS A DAY from the act of discrimination (s123(1)).
(1)
Burden of à Reversed for harassment and victimisation claims.
Proof à Employer must prove that his or her conduct was NOT unlawful (s136).
(2)
Has there à S27
Been à Victimisation occurs where A subjects B to a detriment because B does a “protected
Victimisation? Act” (s27(1)).
à A Protected Act is defined by s27(2):
(3) o (a) Bringing proceedings under this Act;
o (b) Giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this
Act;
o (c) Doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;
o (d) Making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person
has contravened this Act.
à Essentially this aims to protect employees from being mistreated because they bring
proceedings or doing anything associated with bringing proceedings under the
Equality Act 2010.
à Victimisation must be because of a protected act; there will not be victimisation if the
employer’s true motives are found to be something else (Chief Constable of West
Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001]
à s27(3):
o Giving false evidence or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the
evidence is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.
o E.g. a man with a grudge against his employer knowingly gives false evidence in
a colleague’s discrimination claim against the employer. He is subsequently
dismissed for supporting the claim. His dismissal would not amount to
victimisation because of his untrue and malicious evidence.
Vicarious Liability?
Liability? à Employer may be liable through principles of vicarious liability (s109).
à Employee who committed the unlawful act will be liable (s110).
o UNLESS it is found that the act was NOT committed “in the course of
employment”.
Act Done in à Employers liable for acts of their employees done “in the course of [their]
the “Course of employment” (s109(1)).
Employment” o The words should be interpreted in the sense in which they are employed in
? everyday speech
o Construed broadly
E.g. Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC [2016] UKSC 11:
Victimisation
Eligibility à Time Limit = 3 months LESS A DAY from the act of discrimination (s123(1)).
(1)
Burden of à Reversed for harassment and victimisation claims.
Proof à Employer must prove that his or her conduct was NOT unlawful (s136).
(2)
Has there à S27
Been à Victimisation occurs where A subjects B to a detriment because B does a “protected
Victimisation? Act” (s27(1)).
à A Protected Act is defined by s27(2):
(3) o (a) Bringing proceedings under this Act;
o (b) Giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this
Act;
o (c) Doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;
o (d) Making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person
has contravened this Act.
à Essentially this aims to protect employees from being mistreated because they bring
proceedings or doing anything associated with bringing proceedings under the
Equality Act 2010.
à Victimisation must be because of a protected act; there will not be victimisation if the
employer’s true motives are found to be something else (Chief Constable of West
Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001]
à s27(3):
o Giving false evidence or making a false allegation, is not a protected act if the
evidence is given, or the allegation is made, in bad faith.
o E.g. a man with a grudge against his employer knowingly gives false evidence in
a colleague’s discrimination claim against the employer. He is subsequently
dismissed for supporting the claim. His dismissal would not amount to
victimisation because of his untrue and malicious evidence.
Vicarious Liability?
Liability? à Employer may be liable through principles of vicarious liability (s109).
à Employee who committed the unlawful act will be liable (s110).
o UNLESS it is found that the act was NOT committed “in the course of
employment”.
Act Done in à Employers liable for acts of their employees done “in the course of [their]
the “Course of employment” (s109(1)).
Employment” o The words should be interpreted in the sense in which they are employed in
? everyday speech
o Construed broadly
E.g. Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC [2016] UKSC 11:
