Case Law in the United Kingdom - House of Lords

James v Eastleigh Borough Council, 1990
Industrial Relations Law Report 288

The House of Lords established that a discriminatory motive or intention is not necessary for finding unlawful discrimination. In other words, the argument that the harasser "did not mean any harm" could be rebuked by reference to the impact that the behaviour had on the complainant.

Zafar v Glasgow City Council, 1998
Industrial Relations Law Report 36

In this race discrimination case, the House of Lords ruled that the "hypothetical employer" comparison is irrelevant in deciding if an employer has treated someone "less favourably" than he treats or would have treated another. It is thus sufficient to infer that discrimination was on the grounds of sex.

These claims were test cases for some 60,000 part-time workers who were initially denied access to occupational schemes. Though the schemes were amended to allow part-timers to join, the applicants were seeking clarification of their rights to backdated membership and of the time limit for taking legal action in respect of these rights.

The Employment Tribunal ruling in these cases was unfavourable and this decision was upheld on appeal by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. An appeal was made to the House of Lords which referred the cases to the ECJ.

The ECJ gave its decision on 16 May 2000. The ECJ ruled that a six month time limit for lodging a tribunal application is permissible, running from the date the employment to which the claim relates ceases. The Court also explained that if a claim for pension rights is successful, it is possible to claim back as far as April 1976.

The test cases were returned to the House of Lords which in February 2001 ruled that:

• It is not unlawful to require those part-timers seeking admission to an occupational pension scheme to lodge claims in the national courts within six months of leaving the employment to which the claim relates.
• Where part-timers have lodged claims in the Employment Tribunal within the six month time limit, they are entitled to claim occupational pension rights denied as a result of part-time working back-dated to 8 April 1976 or to the date when the employment commenced.
• Where such entitlement is established, the applicant is required to pay any pension contributions which would be relevant to the entitlement.
• Where there has been a succession of short-term contracts within the context of a stable employment relationship in respect of the same employment, the time limit cannot be relied on to require a claim for occupational pension rights to be lodged within six months of the end of each contract.

N.B. The test cases will now be referred back to the employment tribunals to make a final ruling on any individual entitlement. It is understood that 40,000 of the part-timers who have already lodged will benefit from back-dated occupational pension rights. A further 20,000 part-timers who lodged their claims outside the 6 month time limit will not be entitled to back-dated pension rights.