Onu v Akwiwu
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the Equality Act 2010 covers victimisation that happens after employment has ended. Except it had already recently decided that the Equality Act 2010 doesn't cover victimisation that happens after employment has ended.
It had been the position that employees were only protected from victimisation during the course of employment. Then along came Ms Onu's case, turning the tables. So now things are less certain, and it looks as though the Court of Appeal will decide if this latest decision that post-employment victimisation is covered too is the right approach.
Ms Onu was a migrant domestic worker who brought various tribunal claims against her employer. One of these was for race victimisation that she said had taken place a few months after her employment had ended (the employer was alleged to have telephoned Ms Onu's sister making threats that stemmed from the tribunal claims Ms Onu had brought).
The EAT said it would be wrong if Ms Onu was not protected by equality law. But this conflicted with a previous decision of the EAT just two months earlier, where a different judge decided that equality law did not cover victimisation that took place after employment had ended. So the law is unclear and everyone is going off to the Court of Appeal in the hope of clarity.
Our advice? It's simple really: don't treat employees or former employees badly (whether they've brought a claim against you or not).
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the Equality Act 2010 covers victimisation that happens after employment has ended. Except it had already recently decided that the Equality Act 2010 doesn't cover victimisation that happens after employment has ended.
It had been the position that employees were only protected from victimisation during the course of employment. Then along came Ms Onu's case, turning the tables. So now things are less certain, and it looks as though the Court of Appeal will decide if this latest decision that post-employment victimisation is covered too is the right approach.
Ms Onu was a migrant domestic worker who brought various tribunal claims against her employer. One of these was for race victimisation that she said had taken place a few months after her employment had ended (the employer was alleged to have telephoned Ms Onu's sister making threats that stemmed from the tribunal claims Ms Onu had brought).
The EAT said it would be wrong if Ms Onu was not protected by equality law. But this conflicted with a previous decision of the EAT just two months earlier, where a different judge decided that equality law did not cover victimisation that took place after employment had ended. So the law is unclear and everyone is going off to the Court of Appeal in the hope of clarity.
Our advice? It's simple really: don't treat employees or former employees badly (whether they've brought a claim against you or not).
No comments:
Post a Comment