Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The Court of Appeal has held that post-termination victimisation is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 in Jessemy v Rowstock Ltd. Mr Jessemy had brought tribunal proceedings including age discrimination. The employment tribunal found that Rowstock Ltd had provided a detrimental employment reference as a result of Mr Jessemy pursuing the tribunal proceedings but was unable to provide a remedy due to the wording of the Equality Act.
Strangely, s108(7) of the Act appeared to expressly exclude post-employment victimisation, despite such protection being required by EU law. The protection had already been established by case law and there was no indication that there was an intention to change that under the Equality Act.
The Court of Appeal held that the Act contains a drafting error; that the claim must succeed and remitted the case back to the tribunal to assess compensation.
Employers should be mindful of the risks when supplying references for employees who have issued discrimination proceedings against them.
The Home Office recently launched a central registry for modern slavery statements. A growing number of educational organisations, including a number of universities, have published statements on the registry.
View blog
35,000 workers working in ASDA’s retail business sought to compare themselves to workers at distribution depots for equal pay purposes. Find out more about this Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The Supreme Court judgment represents the conclusion on whether or not “sleep in time” should be classified as working time, when calculating the National Minimum Wage (NMW).
In a pivotal and much anticipated judgment for the social care sector, the Supreme Court has ruled that workers are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage for all time spent on a sleep-in shift.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up