Discrimination; time limits; a 'continuing act' distinguishes a policy or regime from a one-off decision.
Victimisation; EU law requires protection against victimisation even after the employment relationship has ended.
Discrimination; victimisation; a bad reference given because of a previous discrimination claim is unlawful.
Discrimination; detriment; reasonable worker. The House of Lords held that a complainant need not show any physical or economic consequence to establish 'detriment': the question is whether a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the treatment was to their detriment, though an unjustified sense of grievance cannot amount to one. The test has been applied by analogy beyond discrimination, including to 'material detriment' under reg 4(9) TUPE, where the tribunal considers the change from the employee's perspective and then whether, objectively, it was to their disadvantage (Nationwide Building Society v Benn; Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust).
Victimisation; three-stage test; continuation of proceedings; honest and reasonable conduct. The House of Lords, Baroness Hale endorsing the approach of Lord Nicholls in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan, applied a three-stage test: did the alleged victimisation arise in prohibited circumstances; was the claimant subjected to a detriment; and was that because the claimant had done a protected act. Bringing proceedings includes continuing them, so pressure applied to claimants to drop equal pay claims engages the protection. With Khan, the case establishes that an employer may act honestly and reasonably to protect its position in litigation without victimising the claimant; the question is whether the reason for the treatment was the protected act or some feature of it properly treated as separable.
Victimisation; dismissal; dismissal was for the *manner* of the complaints (false/mental illness), not the complaints themselves.
Victimisation; protected acts; dismissing an employee for having brought numerous unfounded but good-faith discrimination grievances and claims was victimisation — the Martin v Devonshires 'separable features' escape route is exceptional.
Victimisation; post-employment; the Equality Act prohibits victimisation even after employment has ended.
Discrimination; victimisation; limitation; continuing acts. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the two-stage burden of proof under s.136 EqA 2010 (the Igen v Wong approach) applies equally to victimisation claims. On limitation, the Court clarified that where acts said to constitute victimisation are discrete and not linked by a common discriminatory policy or state of affairs, each must be assessed individually for time-limit purposes; a 'continuing act' requires an act extending over a period, not merely a series of separate acts with similar characteristics.