Sex Discrimination

Front 1

Smith v Safeway Store [1996] I.R.L.R. 456

Back 1

• “Dress code applying a standard of what is conventional in an even handed way between men and women is not discriminatory” (Prof. Craig)

• Male assistant, working in the delicatessen department, was dismissed for refusing to cut his ponytail

• Held he was not discriminated

• The company required all employees not to dress in an unconventional way

• In other words discrimination between different sexes is not necessarily discrimination against one sex

Front 2

• Department for Work and Pensions v Thomson [2004] I.R.L.R. 348

Back 2

• All staff required to dress in a “professional and business way”

• However, for men, it was specified that they had to wear collar and tie

• Held male was not discriminated • Less flexibility granted to women did not mean necessarily discrimination

Front 3

• Grieg v Community Industry 1979 I.R.L.R. 158

Back 3

o Employer did not allow women to join all men team

o Discrimination, although the employer had best interests at heart

Front 4

• Dunlop v RSA

Back 4

o A female was not allowed to do night shift or weekend working o As a result she lost better hourly rate o RSA motive – not to put Ms Dunlop in an unfavorable position – noble, but irrelevant

o Held that there was discrimination

Front 5

• MOD v Jeremiah 1980

Back 5

• Dirty jobs granted to men only

• Men hence received extra salary on the above notion, hence a discrimination raised

Front 6

• Ranking v British Coal 1993 – Article 141 of Rome Treaty

Back 6

o Mrs Rankin over 60 dismissed on the ground of redundancy o According to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act – 197 women excluded from redundancy if aged more than 60 (men more than 65)

o This national piece of legislation was repealed no earlier than 1990

o Mrs Rankin was able to rely on the article 141

o Direct applicability

Front 7

• Marshal v Southampton 1986– Equal Treatment Directive

Back 7

o Different age limits for retirement of different sexes contrary to the Directive although within the SDA

o Directive has direct effect against the State or emanation of state

o Directive directly applicable so long it is clear and precise

Front 8

• Foster v British Gas 1991

Back 8

o “Emanation of State” is an organisation whatever its legal form

• that is responsible for providing a public service under the control of the state and

• within special powers for that purpose and

• that are not available to the ordinary citizen

Front 9

• Equality Act 2010

Back 9

o Section 11 – Sex discrimination

o Section 13 – Direct discrimination o Section 19 – Indirect discrimination

o Regulation 27 – Victimization (Suffered detriment due to having done a protected act)

o Section 16 & 26 – Harassment

Front 10

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 2

Back 10

o Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Front 11

• Treaty of Rome 1957

Back 11

o Article 141 (Equal pay for work of equal value)

Front 12

• Directive 76/207

Back 12

(the “Equal Treatment Directive”)

Front 13

• Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Back 13

o It covers non-contractual discrimination

o Direct; indirect discrimination and victimisation