Industrial Law Journal - current issue

Rethinking Victimisation

Connolly, M. — 2009-06-01

Discrimination law prohibits direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment, on protected grounds, such as race, sex, etc. Workers who use the legislation, or assist others to do so, need protection against retaliation by their employer. Accordingly, the legislation seeks to remove deterrents by creating a fourth instance of discrimination, known as victimisation. The statutory formula is sparse, apparently providing employers no defence. Yet in some cases, courts sympathetic to the employer have strained the formula to provide what amounts to a benign motive defence. The result is an incoherent body of case law. This article explores the problem in Britain, with some useful illustrations from the USA, and attempts to settle upon a new statutory formula that would provide certainty and clarity, as well as fulfilling the ambition of the anti-victimisation doctrine.

The ECJ and Labour Law: A 2008 Retrospective

Kilpatrick, C. — 2009-06-01

Indirect Discrimination: Between the Wheat and the Chaff

Cunningham, N. — 2009-06-01

Whose Burden of Proof?: R v Chargot Limited (t/a Contracts Services) * [2008] UKHL 73 (HL)

Barrett, B. — 2009-06-01

Harassment and Protected Characteristics: English v Thomas Sanderson * [2008] EWCA Civ 1421; [2009] IRLR 206 (CA)

Eastwood, R. M. — 2009-06-01

The Beginning of the End for Addis v The Gramophone Company?: Honda Canada Inc. v Keays * [2008] 294 DLR (4th) 577 (Supreme Court of Canada)

Brodie, D. — 2009-06-01

Forced Retirement, Age Discrimination and the Heyday Case: Case C-388/07 R (The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England)) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform[2009] IRLR 373 (ECJ)

Connolly, M. — 2009-06-01

Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace

Pitt, G. — 2009-06-01