INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A WORK COLLEAGUE
10 October 2012
Whilst we often see claims of discrimination brought by employees against their employer, a recent tribunal case serves as a reminder that individual perpetrators themselves can also be liable under discrimination law.
Pinsent Masons takes a look at the case of Barlow v Stone and asks - when can individuals be personally liable for discriminating against a work colleague?
Mr Barlow (B) was employed by Amber Valley Community Transport (AVCT) as a part time driver. He brought a claim against AVCT alleging disability discrimination, including failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. His claims were principally directed at Mr Dawson (D), a director of AVCT. Mr Stone (S) was a fellow employee of AVCT and a friend of D. He made a wholly false complaint to the police alleging that B had verbally abused him, used threatening language and driven erratically. B brought a victimisation claim against S, alleging that S and D had colluded in making the false complaint and were motivated by malicious intent resulting from B's disability discrimination claim against AVCT. Interestingly, B brought this claim against S without pursuing a claim against their mutual employer. The Employment Tribunal (ET) rightly pointed out that victimisation is a form of discrimination and that subjecting a person to a detriment for bringing disability discrimination proceedings amounts to victimisation. Further, the ET noted that anything done by an employee in the course of his employment is treated as also done by the employer, regardless of the employer's knowledge or consent. Consequently, the ET was prepared to accept that AVCT could be vicariously liable for the acts of S, had B pursued a claim against AVCT. However, the ET decided that it could not hear a claim against S as he was not B's employer or potential employer. However, the EAT upheld B's appeal. It held that, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it was not necessary for B to bring a claim against AVCT in order to make a claim against S, provided it could be established that AVCT would have been vicariously liable for the discrimination. B, therefore, had a viable claim against S and the case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal.
NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE: AU PAIRS AND MIGRANT DOMESTIC WORKERS
10 October 2012
Is an au pair entitled to the national minimum wage if certain tasks are not shared with the family?
No, says the Court of Appeal, in Nambalat v Taher & Ors .
Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports:
Under Reg.2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, domestic workers and au pairs are exempt if they live in the family home, make no payment towards accommodation or meals, and are not family members but are treated as such in the sharing of tasks and leisure activities. On the one hand, an au pair who carries out most of the work in the home, with the family doing very little, will not be sharing in the household's tasks. At the other extreme, a working wife with little spare time would have to do something to be seen as sharing with the chores.
CIPP Policy News Journal
12/04/2013, Page 62 of 362
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker