Dans une décision rendue en mars 2023, dans le cadre d’un pourvoi en contrôle judiciaire[1], la Cour supérieure a condamné le syndicat à dédommager l’employeur pour l’entièreté des sommes que celui-ci a dû verser à ses salariés visés par une clause de la convention collective prévoyant une réduction du traitement salarial des retraités

In Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P. 2023 WL 350565, the New York Court of Appeals recently accepted certification of a question on state law put to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, namely:

Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement

On January 31, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public hearing entitled “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier”.[1] During the hearing, the EEOC explored the potential benefits and harms associated with artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated

Two recent employment cases regarding “gender critical” beliefs have highlighted the difficulties in this area and whether such beliefs are capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

Religion or belief is one of the nine protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010.  The Act prohibits direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in

The Employment Tribunal (ET) has found that an employee that was called “a bald ****” by a fellow male colleague was harassed based on his sex.

The Claimant presented a number of other claims against the Respondent, including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, victimisation and health and safety detriments; however, this post focuses on

One of the challenging circumstances often facing an employer is having to make a tough decision (e.g. termination) with respect to an employee who is known to have a protected characteristic under human rights law. Whether the employee is elderly, has a disability, is gay, or has another protected characteristic, the concern is that the

A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Allay (UK) Limited v Mr S Gehlen provides useful guidance to employers seeking to rely on the “reasonable steps” defence to a claim of discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

An employer can be liable for acts of discrimination, harassment and victimisation carried out by its employees