A case brought by a former domestic servant against her employers has established for the first time that a person may be treated as discriminated against on grounds of race where the derogatory treatment is connected to their caste status.

A recent decision has confirmed that it is possible for a corporate body to be the victim of discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

A victimisation claim can succeed where a person is treated less favourably because someone else has made an allegation of discrimination and in the employer’s mind the two people are associated.

The dismissal of a Christian employee who expressed negative views in respect of her colleague’s homosexual lifestyle was held to be discriminatory.

An employer’s request that a Muslim employee wear a shorter jilbab for health and safety reasons was held not to be discriminatory.

An employer’s reasonable, though not perfect, efforts to discern whether an employee’s numerous sickness absences were caused by disability have been found to be sufficient to prevent it having constructive knowledge of her disability.

A worsening of employment benefits that were dependent upon length of service did indirectly discriminate against older workers.

The European Court of Justice has ruled that, whilst obesity is not of itself a ‘disability’, the effects of obesity on a worker’s life could be deemed a ‘disability’.

The Court of Appeal has held that a beauty consultant who provided her services via a chain of companies was not ‘in employment’ under the Equality Act 2010 and therefore could not claim discrimination.

A male employee who argued that his employer’s failure to pay him enhanced additional paternity pay was directly and indirectly discriminatory was unsuccessful in his claim. The Tribunal held that the appropriate comparator for direct discrimination is a female applicant for additional paternity leave who is the female spouse or civil partner of someone on maternity leave and, therefore, the claimant could not establish that he had been treated less favourably because he was a man. In any event, it held that the disparity in treatment was a proportionate means of keeping more women at Ford.

A Tribunal has held that a payment made to a claimant on the termination of his employment which related to discrimination and injury to feelings was taxable as a termination payment because it was connected with termination.