No reverse burden race cases concerning discrimination on grounds of colour

The EAT in Okonu v G4S Security Services (UK) Ltd (UKEAT/0035/07/JOJ) concluded that section 54A RRA 1976 only shifts the burden of proof in cases involving discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic or national origins and does not shift the burden in cases of discrimination on grounds of colour or nationality. Read on

Accepting a breach of the obligation of trust and confidence: RDF Media v Clements

Alan Clements sought to leave the RDF Media Group, which had acquired a company of which he was co-owner, less than two years into a three year covenant period. Read on

Restrictive covenants governed by foreign law

Employers frequently seek to protect their businesses by including non-compete, non-dealing or non-solicitation covenants in their employees' contracts. Read on

News:

The House of Lords has turned disability discrimination law upside down in its first judgment in this field. In Lewisham v Malcolm, which concerned housing but will apply to employment cases, a majority (Baroness Hale dissenting) held that Clark v Novacold had been wrongly decided, so that the correct comparator in a s3A (1) claim is a non-disabled person in the same situation as the disabled person i.e. to whom the reason for the treatment still applies. The Lords also held that "a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability" has to be construed narrowly, requiring the disability to play a motivating part in the decision-making process. Hence, knowledge of the disability by the discriminator is now necessary to establish liability. This judgment will make it much harder for claimants to succeed in disability-related discrimination claims, and may require greater reliance on reasonable adjustment arguments.