Low Caste Hindu Refused Anonymity Order in Employment Case

The subject matter of Employment Tribunal (ET) cases can be highly sensitive, and those involved are often keen to maintain their anonymity. However, as was shown by a case in which controversial religious issues took centre stage, the open justice principle will usually require them to be…

Nov 18, 2022

The case concerned a senior electrical engineer who was of Tamil origin and came from a low Hindu caste. In ET proceedings he asserted, amongst other things, that his line manager, a high caste Hindu from Mumbai, had discriminated against him on racial grounds. He claimed that his promotion prospects, bonuses and work allocations had all been adversely affected by his low caste status.

In contending that he should be permitted to bring his claim anonymously, he argued that members of his caste are subject to widespread victimisation by higher caste Hindus, both in India and the UK. He contended that, were he to be identified in the proceedings, any resulting publicity could place him, his wife and his children, together with members of his caste generally, at risk of persecution.

Ruling on his application for an anonymity order, the ET accepted that members of his caste do face discrimination by some higher caste Hindus. It was not, however, persuaded that they suffer systematically from threats or acts of violence in this country. His sons were doing very well at school and there was no evidence that they had been threatened, assaulted or victimised by those from upper castes.

In refusing to grant the order sought, the ET concluded that he had failed to provide the clear and cogent evidence required to justify a departure from the fundamental principle of open justice. The ET also rejected the employer’s plea that individuals who would feature as comparators in the case should be granted anonymity.

Age Discrimination, Redundancy and the Burden of Proof – Guideline Ruling

Where an older employee is treated less favourably than a younger one in a similar position, the burden shifts onto the employer to prove that age discrimination had no effect on its decision-making. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an administration manager who was made redundant at the age of 67. The man had worked for a car sales company for more than 20 years when he was selected for redundancy. He contended that his dismissal was pre-determined and motivated by…

How to Conduct a Fair Redundancy Exercise – Guideline EAT Ruling

A redundancy process in which a decision to dismiss is effectively taken in advance of consulting an affected employee will almost never be fair. The point was made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in the case of a nurse who was selected for redundancy solely because her fixed-term contract was shortly due to expire. The nurse worked in a research unit that was losing money and needed to shed staff. She was selected for redundancy for no other reason than that her contract was coming up…

Employment v Self-Employment – This is Why the Distinction Really Matters

Employment law has moved on in leaps and bounds since the bad old days of mass casual labour. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision showed, a large number of people still go to work every day without any clear idea of whether they are employed or self-employed, or any understanding of why that distinction matters. The case concerned a van driver who worked for the same company (C1) for about 17 years before it was taken over by another (C2). The latter accepted that it was obliged by…