Discrimination

legal updates

It has been determined that if an employer can show genuine and justifiable reasons based on costs that a company has chosen to implement a particular policy.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd, it has been determined that if an employer can show genuine and justifiable reasons based on costs that a company has chosen to implement a particular policy, that would but for the cost implications be seen as direct discrimination, it will not be.

The above case involves a security company, who used to allow a particular employee to have Friday afternoons off to attend service at his local mosque. The employer could no longer facilitate this as they needed to have two guards on duty at all times, and it was too costly to allow him the time off without him making it up elsewhere. They offered to change the employees working pattern so that he could have Fridays off and work a weekend day instead, but the employee refused and made a claim for unfair dismissal.

The tribunal held that the cost implication on the employer to allow the employee to continue in this manner was disproportionate, thus making the policy fair. The employee’s case failed on the basis of economical consideration.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Dennis ChapmanIn remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015Read More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Update on Rights to Flexible Working Requests

Employers will remain entitled to turn down a request pointing to reasonable grounds as a basis for refusal.

Three new employment laws for 2024

The Carers Leave Act, The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act and The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act.

Parents and Carers: New Protections at Work

Parents and carers will benefit from the following new employment protections that received royal assent in May 2023.

Toilet provision in the workplace

It’s hard to imagine this sensible judgment was not a relief for all the employees involved in the use of these toilets.

April 2023 Pay Rate Increases

The new financial year is upon us, with new rates abound.

Day One Dismissal

While it may be entirely appropriate to dismiss an employee who has recently commenced employment with you or even circumvent any kind of dismissal procedure, it is always best to exercise caution.

Employment tribunal awards

A tribunal can, at their discretion, award an uplift of 25% for failure to follow the Acas procedure.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.