The state must not discriminate against female employees who are soldiers with childcare responsibilities.

Ministry of Defence v. Debique [2009] UKEAT 0048_09_1210

www.workrep.co.uk

    Helping You     About     Links     Contact     Site Info     HOME

22/10/2009


The EAT decided that the Ministry of Defence was wrong to require that a female soldier be available 24/7. It should also not have forbidden non-British members of the family to stay in her accommodation in order to assist with childcare.

These provisions were discriminatory under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) and the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA).

  • The EAT rejected the MoD's argument that the claim ammounted to an attack on UK immigration rules, but rather arose out of the course of employment under Part III RRA.
  • The RRA and ERA 1996 applies even where the indirect discrimination arises from the exercise of functions of different governmental departments, so the Crown (here the Home Office and MoD departments) could be treated as a single entity.
  • That the immigration PCP (provision, criterion or practice) was applied by the Crown in its capacity of Home Office employer was immaterial as such an interpretation of the RRA was not required by the legislation.

 


The transcript of this case follows:-   Ministry of Defence v. Debique [2009] UKEAT  (usually found at the Bailli or Employment Appeals websites)

Some recent employment cases:-
2009
Autoklenz 'Subcontractors' were employees - the contractual substitution clause was just 'window dressing' - Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 1046
Contract was ultra vires but employee still able to pursue unfair dimsissal claim under ERA 96 - Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust v Lairikyengbam [2009] UKEAT 0499_08_2108
Redundancies - ECJ rules that consultations do not need to begin until the parent company decides which subsidiary will be affected - Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry and Others v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy - ECJ [2009] Case C-44/08
ECJ rules holiday entitlement must not be lost through illness - Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA - ECJ [2009] C-277/08
Costs follow lies (breaching confidentiality in a compromise agreement) - Dunedin Housing Association Ltd v. Donaldson - UKEAT [2009] 0014_09_0807
Pre-contractual negotiations can not be used as evidence for the meaning of a contract - Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd & Ors [2009] UKHL 38
Failure to fully exhaust statutory dispute resolution procedures means a claimant is barred from seeking redress in the courts - Booth v Oldham MBC [2009] EWCA Civ 880
Employers can not hide behind 'substantial equivalence' arguments to justify post TUPE contract changes - TAPERE v SOUTH LONDON AND MAUDSLEY NHS TRUST - [2009] UKEAT 0410_08_1908
The EAT rejects the refusing of the sole candidate for a job by citing conflict of interest and health and safety arguments - Amnesty International v Ahmed - [2009] UKEAT 0447_08_1308

Downloading, publishing, forwarding or any distribution etc of this or any other WorkRep article is subject to license. Workers (excluding HR, reps or consultants etc) researching their own tribunal cases may download for their own use up to 30 pages of WorkRep material free.

Do you have a problem at work? Are you being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work or have you been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed? If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep.co.uk are for general information purposes only.  Please read the site info before using this website  © 2009 Workrep