Direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, belief, disability and equal pay, and the proof problems each of them creates.
The EAT remits a £5,000 aggravated damages award because the tribunal identified conduct it disliked without finding what additional injury it caused. HHJ Tayler restates the three requirements: an additional factor, an increased injury, and the causal link between them.
Aristotle's account of anger has three parts and Nussbaum keeps only one. The Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010 divide the same ground: five provisions cut a remedy for what the claimant did about the wrong or why the claimant spoke, the declaration marks the wrong and pays nothing, and the one remedy whose whole content was that it should not happen again was narrowed by the Deregulation Act 2015.
HHJ Auerbach's judgment in London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Garrett [2026] EAT 77 holds that a descriptive belief cannot be a manifestation of a normative one — and shows how a discrimination claim can be decided by the way a belief is written down at a case management hearing.
HHJ Tayler's judgment in Clifton Diocese v Parker [2026] EAT 68 identifies three recurring errors in how tribunals apply the section 136 burden of proof in discrimination cases, and offers five sense-check questions as a sequential framework to prevent them.
UK indirect discrimination law demands that employers justify disparate impact. But when the decision was made by an opaque algorithm, the justification defence may be structurally unavailable.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fasano confirms the limits of agency under the Equality Act, exposing a liability black hole for claimants in corporate group structures.
The government's NDA consultation proposes conditions under which workplace confidentiality agreements can survive the new default-void rule in section 202A ERA 1996. What practitioners need to know.
Claudia Goldin's Nobel Prize research identifies the 'greedy jobs' premium, non-linear pay for long, inflexible hours, as the principal driver of the gender pay gap. The Equality Act 2010 equal pay framework was not built to address it.
In KJ v British Council, the EAT has held that a tribunal cannot apply a Chagger deduction to discrimination compensation without first asking whether the factors relied on were themselves products of the discrimination. A 35% reduction was overturned because the tribunal failed to construct a proper counterfactual.
The Court of Appeal dismisses Seyi Omooba's application to reopen her refused permission to appeal, closing seven years of litigation. Lady Justice Falk delivers the clearest modern synthesis of the 'reason why' test in direct discrimination cases.
Sir Charlie Mayfield’s plan to bypass the fit note system with standardised health plans offers a proactive alternative to economic inactivity, but its reliance on non-medical assessors and common standards introduces significant legal friction points for chronic ill health management.
A masterclass in causation: HHJ Simon Auerbach's tribute to Sir Patrick Elias clarifies the 'true reason' for dismissal, the 'reasons why' test in discrimination, and the critical distinction between counterfactual and predictive remedy assessments.
The EAT's decision in Ms S Pal v Accenture exposes two critical errors: dismissing endometriosis claims based on demeanour, and applying Polkey reductions without evidence of what a fair process would have yielded.
What happens when an employee who has harassed a colleague then transfers under TUPE? A review of Sean Pong Tyres Ltd v Moore and ABC v Huntercombe (No. 12) Ltd, which clarify the limits of liability transfers.
A roundup of key developments including the Employment Rights Act 2025 implementation, the Kelly v Leonardo gender critical ruling, and privacy procedural changes in Tribunals.
An analysis of Peggie v Fife Health Board Case No. 4104864/2024 and For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] ICR 899, clarifying that 'sex' refers to biological sex under the Equality Act 2010 and outlining the 'balancing test' for conflicting rights in the workplace.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal clarifies the burden of proof for material factor defences and corrects a fundamental error in applying the Essop principle to indirect discrimination.
Blocking a sick employee from accessing holiday pay is not merely a breach of the Working Time 'Regulations': it can be the catalyst for successful discrimination claims.
A look at what 2025 holds for employment law, including day one unfair dismissal rights under the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Court of Appeal's call for whistleblowing reform, and practical implications of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers.
In 2019 the UK’s civil service moved away from forced distributions. Why this management style is legally risky.
Remedies & Compensation · Algorithmic Management & AI · Burden of Proof