Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Airport City, Manchester 0844 800 8346

Office 129
Manchester Business Park
3000 Aviator Way
Manchester M22 5TG

Send us a message
Our Offices

Post-employment victimisation

29th February, 2012

It has recently been held by an employment tribunal in Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd and another that post-employment victimisation is not unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act).

Whilst section 108 of the Act does protect against post-employment discrimination and harassment, it does not expressly protect against post-employment victimisation.  Section 108(7) of the Act goes as far as to state that conduct amounting to victimisation will be dealt under the victimisation provisions and not the post-employment section.  The victimisation provisions in the Act deal expressly with victimisation against current employees.

Jessemey involved an employee that brought a claim against his employer for age discrimination and unfair dismissal after being dismissed.  The employer provided an unfavourable reference for the employee and as a result the employee pursued a further claim against his employer for victimisation.

The employment tribunal accepted that there had been an act of victimisation since the unfavourable reference was provided because the employee had brought tribunal proceedings against it.  However, the tribunal held that the claim could not succeed because section 108 of the Act does not prohibit post-employment victimisation, only post-employment discrimination and harassment.

Employees wishing to bring post-victimisation claims might seek to rely on Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Ltd. In that case, the House of Lords held that the pre-Equality Act 2010 legislation covered post-employment discrimination (including victimisation) even though the legislation at that time did not expressly protect former employees.

The employee in Jessemey does not appear to have relied on Rhys-Harper so it remains to be seen what the outcome will be if and when that decision is taken into account.

If you need advice or have any concerns regarding victimisation both during and after employment, please contact Helen Kidd in the Employment Team.

 

You might also be interested in...

Is there such a thing as a good divorce?

22nd November, 2018

Family Law Partner Sandy Edwards believes there is. Next week, from 26 to 30 November, Resolution, an organisation of 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals, will be promoting “Good Divorce Week” which will focus on how separating and divorcing couples can put their children’s needs first and limit the impact of conflict. The week falls during the government’s divorce... Read More »

Ethics Guidance – Transparency in Price and Service

16th November, 2018

It is reported that a quarter of all complaints dealt with by the Legal Ombudsman revolve around costs. Therefore to avoid complaints and confusion, it is important to be clear from the outset. The new Transparency Rules (which the SRA have now confirmed will come into effect on 6 December 2018) require that accurate and relevant information is... Read More »

Aaron & Partners Increases Recommendations in Leading Industry Guide, The Legal 500

5th November, 2018

Aaron & Partners LLP has once again seen improved rankings in The Legal 500 – a comprehensive guide... Read More »

Contact Us