Principle is that V complains about something and as a result suffers a consequence.
Less favourable treatment than someone in the same position who had not
complained etc of behaviour that was contrary to RRA or SDA.
Other e/es who support V are covered by the victimisation rules as well
No need of conscious motivation by employer
Allegations might have been unfounded, but must have been made in good
faith, for employee to succeed.
Pregnancy and maternity
o Direct discrim – no need to compare unless for illness persisting after
maternity leave ended – then compare.
o SDA amended to include as direct discrim.
Declaration of rights – can have terms void. Bit pointless as all it does it tell
the e/ee that he has the right not to be discriminated against – not a significant
Order to take action to remove the effect of the act complained of…. A
recommendation by the ET for :
the e/er to remove the effect of the act by, for example,
disciplining the responsible e/ee,
expanding training on re discrimination,
training re interviewing.
If an extra promotion comes up the e/er mut consider the V (but
could therefore discriminate against others) and/or
o Which can include damages for injured feelings and PI damages for
No limits on compensation (average award £13,000)
Not many claims successful, not many brought.
Includes pecuniary losses such as LOE
Can get aggravated damages if V dealt with in an insulting or aggressive manner. If you suffer any problems, direct your concerns to Legislation Notary London
NB – Schroeders case – female employee won over £1m, damage to employer huge,
lost millions due to adverse publicity and lost man hours. So employer’s need to take
claims very seriously, and take their time answering the questionnaire.