In his latest Coffee Break Briefing webinar, Frettens’ own Insolvency Guru Malcolm Niekirk looked at dealing with solvent liquidations with no tax clearance.
This is the summary of that briefing.
Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
The Supreme Court has held in this case that it is not necessary to establish the reason for the particular disadvantage to which a group is put, compared to another to succeed with an indirect discrimination claim.
The essential element is a causal connection between the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and the disadvantage suffered, not only by the group, but also by the individual. The Supreme Court explained there are various reasons, or ‘context factors’ why one group may find it harder to comply with the PCP than others. They can be genetic, social, or even another PCP. The PCP does not need to put every member of the group sharing the protected characteristic at a disadvantage. The disparate impact or disadvantage can be established on the basis of statistics. Finally, the PCP may be able to be justified and there is no stigma or shame in doing so.
In Practice
This case clarifies the law finally after there had been a number of contradictory decisions at the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal levels. It will make it easier for individuals to claim indirect discrimination, although, as stated above, this can be justified by an employer as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.
At Frettens, all of our solicitors offer a free initial meeting or chat on the phone to answer your questions. If this article raises issues for you or your business, please call us on 01202 499255 and the Employment team will be happy to discuss it with you.
