In our alert earlier this year, highlighting cases to look out for in 2014, we confirmed that the Court of Appeal would be hearing the appeals in Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and another and Onu v Akwiwu and another, as to whether the Equality Act 2010 does cover post-employment victimisation. The EAT in Jessemey said it didn’t, but the EAT in Onu said it did.
In the Jessemey (J) case, J brought proceedings for unfair dismissal and age discrimination and went to an employment agency for help in getting another position. However, a director from his former firm gave him a bad reference because he had made a complaint of discrimination and J launched another claim alleging victimisation contrary to the Equality Act 2010. The ET and the EAT found that post-employment victimisation was not prohibited by the Equality Act 2010, but the Court of Appeal ruled that this was an incorrect interpretation of equality law and was not compatible with EU legislation.
The Court of Appeal observed that at the time that the 2010 Act was drafted the existing state of the law was that post-termination victimisation was unlawful and there was no indication that the Government in promoting the 2010 Act intended to change the law by withdrawing the protection previously enjoyed by former employees. It followed that the apparent failure of the statute to prohibit post-termination victimisation is a drafting error. The claim will now return to the Employment Tribunal for the assessment of compensation.
Content Note
The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. 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, SM&B 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.
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.
