Items with the keyword sexual_harassment
- Commerzbank AG v Rajput UKEAT/0164/18/RNAppeal against the ET’s decision regarding the Claimant’s complaints of sex discrimination, harassment and maternity discrimination. Appeal allowed in part.(09/07/2019) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Vernon v Azure Support Services Ltd & Ors UKEAT/0192/13/SMAppeal and cross appeal in case involving questions of vicarious liability for sexual harassment after a TUPE transfer and discrimination claims. Claimant's appeal on the liability allowed. Respondent’s appeal on the discrimination issue dismissed.(09/11/2014) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Duffy v George [2013] EWCA Civ 908Appeal against the EAT’s decision that an ET does not necessarily err in law if it proceeds with a hearing and makes findings adverse to a respondent where a claimant does not attend and so is unavailable for cross examination. Appeal allowed and remitted for a complete re-hearing before a different Tribunal.(24/07/2013) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Hurst v Kelly UKEAT/0167/13/DMAppeal against a decision by the ET that they did not have jurisdiction to hear a claim of victimisation which was directed only towards a fellow employee, a compromise agreements having been reached with the employer. Appeal allowed.(11/07/2013) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Duffy v George UKEAT/0517/11/KNAppeal against a finding by the ET, that the respondent had sexually harassed the claimant, which was made without the claimant attending the hearing. Appeal dismissed.(19/10/2012) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Nazir & Anor v Asim & Anor UKEAT/0332/09/RNAppeal against findings of sexual and racial harassment and discrimination. The claims were brought against 2 members of a board, which was an unincorporated organisation: the Tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against the 2 board members in their capacity as representatives of the UA and not as individual perpetrators. 4 of the claims succeeded. The jurisdiction appeal was dismissed. The EATconfirmed that the board members were liable as 'employer' and not through vicarious or secondary liability. Claims of racial and sexual harassment and discrimination were remitted to a fresh Tribunal.(30/06/2010) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
- Munchkins Restaurant & Anor v Karmazyn & Ors UKEAT/0359/09/LA; UKEAT/0481/09/LAAppeal against decision of the Tribunal who ruled that the respondent had sexually harassed the claimants, leading to their constructive unfaoir dismissals. Appeal on most grounds failed, although appeals in relation to compensation awarded for wages during the notice period and for aggravated damages succeeded.(01/06/2010) • case • CPD: 0/0 mins
7 items
