The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is providing legal representation to Jessemey in his appeal to the Court of Appeal against the finding of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in his claim against Rowstock and another, that it had no jurisdiction to hear his claim of post-employment victimisation, i.e. by being given a poor reference by his former employer after lodging a claim for age discrimination. The EAT found that the Equality Act 2010 does not provide a remedy for post-employment victimisation as it was expressly excluded under S.108. In the Commission’s view, this is contrary to EU law and the EAT should have read the Equality Act consistently with EU law (or disapplied S.108). The EHRC has also raised this issue with the Government and has notified the European Commission. A different division of the EAT held in Onu v Akwiwu and another, subsequently held that the 2010 Act does in fact protect individuals against post-employment victimisation and permission has been granted to appeal in this case. The EHRC has reported that that a number of other complaints have been stayed pending the outcome of Jessemey’s appeal so clarity from the Court of Appeal is keenly awaited.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
