Those of you who attended our Annual HR Planner at the end of January will recall that one of the key cases that I highlighted to keep an eye out for was the case of Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd in
Those of you who attended our Annual HR Planner at the end of January will recall that one of the key cases that I highlighted to keep an eye out for was the case of Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd in relation to post employment victimisation.
Mr Jessemey was dismissed by Rowstock because he was 65. He brought Employment Tribunal (ET) claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. Mr Jessemey signed up with a recruitment agency and was then given a negative reference by one of the directors of Rowstock. Mr Jessemey then brought another ET claim alleging post employment victimisation. The ET found that Mr Jessemey had been given the negative reference because he had brought the age discrimination claim. However, the ET went on to find that the Equality Act 2010 did not prohibit post employment victimisation and declined to uphold this claim. So too did the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Post employment victimisation was prohibited by the equality legislation which the Equality Act 2010 replaced and is also prohibited under EU law. Yesterday Lord Justice Maurice Kay, the Vice President of the Court of Appeal, gave judgment politely describing the situation as a "drafting error" and used a flexible interpretative approach to read words into the Equality Act 2010 correcting the error. The matter has been referred back to the ET for an assessment of compensation to Mr Jessemey.
Mr Jessemey was dismissed by Rowstock because he was 65. He brought Employment Tribunal (ET) claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. Mr Jessemey signed up with a recruitment agency and was then given a negative reference by one of the directors of Rowstock. Mr Jessemey then brought another ET claim alleging post employment victimisation. The ET found that Mr Jessemey had been given the negative reference because he had brought the age discrimination claim. However, the ET went on to find that the Equality Act 2010 did not prohibit post employment victimisation and declined to uphold this claim. So too did the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Post employment victimisation was prohibited by the equality legislation which the Equality Act 2010 replaced and is also prohibited under EU law. Yesterday Lord Justice Maurice Kay, the Vice President of the Court of Appeal, gave judgment politely describing the situation as a "drafting error" and used a flexible interpretative approach to read words into the Equality Act 2010 correcting the error. The matter has been referred back to the ET for an assessment of compensation to Mr Jessemey.