London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2) | |
---|---|
Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2) IRLR 157 is a leading discrimination case relevant for UK labour law, concerning objective justification of indirect discrimination.
Facts
Ms Edwards, a single parent, could not keep up child care after the Underground altered its shift system. She had worked as a train driver for ten years.
The Tribunal held that they could have ‘easily, without losing the objectives of their plan and reorganisation, accommodated the applicant who was a long-serving employee… They did not address themselves to these issues’
Judgment
Morison J dismissed the employer's appeal. ‘It may be that London Underground would have wished to implement the single parent link but gave in to pressure from their predominantly male workforce.’ First, he said, ‘the more clear it is that the employers unreasonably failed to show flexibility in their employment practices, the more willing the tribunal should be to make a finding of unlawful discrimination.’ Second, employers can change rosters, but ‘should carefully consider the impact which a new roster might have on a section of their workforce.’ Third, nothing said here ‘should be construed as favouring positive discrimination.’
See also
Direct discrimination cases | |
---|---|
Equality Act 2010 ss 13 and 136 | |
Stefanko v Doherty and Maritime Hotel Ltd IRLR 322 | |
Horsey v Dyfed County Council ICR 755 | |
R (EOC) v Birmingham City Council AC 1155 | |
James v Eastleigh BC UKHL 6 | |
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2) UKHL 13 | |
Smith v Safeway plc ICR 868 | |
Grant v South-West Trains Ltd ICR 449 (C-249/96) | |
Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police v Khan UKHL 48 | |
Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary UKHL 11 | |
Roma Rights Centre v Prague Immigration UKHL 55 | |
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire UKSC 15 | |
Coleman v Attridge Law (2008) C-303/06 | |
English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd EWCA Civ 1421 | |
Grainger plc v Nicholson IRLR 4 (EAT) | |
see UK labour and equality law |
Sources on justifying discrimination | |
---|---|
Equality Act 2010 Sch 9 | |
Etam plc v Rowan IRLR 150 | |
Johnston v Royal Ulster Constabulary (1986) C-222/84 | |
R (Amicus) v SS for Trade and Industry EWHC 860 | |
Sirdar v The Army Board (1999) C-273/97 | |
Kreil v Germany (2000) C-285/98 | |
Lambeth LBC v Commission for Racial Equality ICR 768 | |
Tottenham Green Nursery v Marshall (No 2) ICR 320 | |
Equality Act 2010 s 19(2)(d) | |
Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz (1984) C-170/84 | |
Kontofunktionaerernes Forbund v Danfoss (1989) C-109/88 | |
Rinner-Kühn v FWW Gebäudereinigung KG (1989) C-171/88 | |
Nimz v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1991) C-184/89 | |
Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (2003) C-187/00 | |
Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2004) C-256/01 | |
see UK labour law |