REUTERS |

Employment tribunal claims dealing with the issue of personal liability are being considered with increasing frequency. Claimants often only consider such claims due to concerns over the possible insolvency or dissolution of a former employer. In this situation the opportunity to pursue a claim against an individual may be the only means to obtain a financial remedy. The EAT decision in Murray v Maclay Murray & Spens LLP UKEATS/0004/18 explores this trend in the context of indirect discrimination claims and provides guidance on the circumstances in which such a claim can be pursued.

Discrimination claims generally

Broadly speaking, employees or agents will be liable for their acts if such acts are done:

  • In contravention of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).
  • In the course of their employment or with the authority of a principal.

(Section 110, EqA 2010.)

Under the section, there will be no personal liability where the employee or agent has reasonably relied on a statement by the employer or principal that their acts are not in contravention of EqA 2010.

Furthermore, where the employee or agent has no knowledge of the facts that would render their actions tortious, liability will arguably not attach to the individual. In the context of a victimisation claim, the EAT in Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Baker [2017] ICR 714, suggested that to attach liability to an agent in such circumstances would create an “absurd and unreasonable result” (paragraph 79). It can be inferred that this applies equally to employees.

Indirect discrimination

Indirect discrimination claims require a PCP, which is applied neutrally to all but in fact puts members of a certain group at a particular disadvantage. As suggested by counsel in Murray, individuals in the workplace are less likely to know that there was any indirect discrimination caused by a PCP than their employers (paragraph 22). However, unlike other forms of discrimination, a lack of knowledge or intention to discriminate is common in indirect discrimination claims; neither is required in order for liability to attach. Therefore if the reasoning in Baker were applied in cases of indirect discrimination, liability would rarely attach to individuals. However, the decision in Murray raises further difficulties for claimants pursuing such claims.

Murray

Ms Murray was a solicitor, who alleged that her former employer, the respondent, had indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of sex. She alleged that she was dismissed for failing to work at least the contracted number of hours in the office (the PCP), despite working additional hours at home and at weekends. Ms Murray alleged that this was principally due to her childcare responsibilities and because women were more likely than men to have such responsibilities, the PCP was indirectly discriminatory.

The respondent ceased practice six months after Ms Murray lodged her application. Due to her concern that the respondent might have no assets, she made applications to join (to the proceedings) the new firm that the former members of the respondent joined and three individuals who were corporate partners, and alleged to be agents, of the respondent at the time of her dismissal. The appeal was against the tribunal’s dismissal of her application to add the corporate partners as respondents.

The EAT

The EAT found that an agent is not be liable for indirect discrimination committed by the application of a PCP by the principal and not by the agent. The section applies when a PCP is applied by the agent and is treated by s.109 EqA as having been done by the principal. The respondent’s counsel argued that an agent (or employee) must have a discretion as to how to act; if the agent or employee had no choice, it was unlikely that they would be seen to have “applied” the PCP and there would therefore be no liability for indirect discrimination (paragraph 24).

Unfortunately, this reasoning was not fully explored by the EAT in Ms Murray’s appeal. This was because she failed to plead that the corporate partners had actually applied the PCP. Instead she only asserted that her former employer had done so, therefore her appeal was dismissed as there was no act which fulfilled the requirements of s.109(2).

Nonetheless, the PCP was contractual and the contract was between Ms Murray and her employer. If the corporate partners had applied the PCP, applying the EAT’s reasoning, they may have been liable whether or not they had a discretion. It appears that an indirect discrimination claim against the corporate partners could have been pursued if the claim was properly pleaded.

Further comment

An employee or agent probably still “applies” a PCP, even if they enforce it in the absence of discretion. Nonetheless, given that the law of indirect discrimination is aimed at scrutinising neutral requirements, it may be unreasonable, in most instances, to impose personal liability where the individual has no control or individual influence over the application of requirements created by an employer.

Devereux Bayo Randle
REUTERS | Shutterstock

It has never been more important for the country to have a strong, confident and effective equalities regulator. A cursory look at social media tells you why. Whether it’s allegations of sexual harassment in Parliament, or of racism at the Football Association, or the gender pay gap at the BBC, discrimination is everywhere. Continue reading

REUTERS | Thomson Reuters

Last month’s revelations about the Presidents Club fundraising dinner, at which female hostesses were reportedly harassed by male guests, has raised questions about the third party harassment provisions under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). While the relevant provisions were repealed from 1 October 2013, there has been some suggestion that they should be re-enacted. Until Parliament intervenes, what protection is currently available to employees and which steps should employers consider taking? Continue reading

REUTERS | Maxim Shemetov

Employee data and monitoring. The ECtHR has held that a University’s installation of surveillance cameras in student auditoriums violated Article 8 of the ECHR. Privacy must be interpreted broadly, to include the right to lead a private social life, which applied in this case because lecturers not only taught, but interacted with students in the auditoriums.

The High Court has found that an employer can be vicariously liable for the deliberate and criminal disclosure of personal data by an employee. As the first ever data breach class action, the case will have a far-reaching impact on data controllers who may face substantial financial liabilities.

Trade unions. The EAT has held that an employer’s attempt to bypass a recognised trade union by negotiating directly with its employees amounted to an unlawful inducement. The EAT confirmed that even if only one term of employment is determined by direct agreement it will be sufficient to amount to an unlawful inducement. Continue reading

REUTERS | Michaela Rehle

Substitution and worker status

2017 has seen a series of cases concerning limb (b) worker status arising from the ‘gig economy’. Putative workers have claimed entitlements to be paid the minimum wage, holiday pay and so on, on the basis that they meet the definition of a ‘limb (b)’ worker, viz. a person working under a contract “whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.” (Section 230(3), Employment Rights Act 1996. See the similar definitions in the Working Time Regulations 1998, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, Employment Relations Act 1999 and the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.) Continue reading

REUTERS | Thomson Reuters

Does an employer have a claim in property to the emails, or the content of emails, that were sent by employees from their employer’s email accounts?

The High Court recently considered this question in the context of an application for interim relief in a team move case. The draft order sought by the claimants (Capita and another) included a provision requiring the ex-employee defendants to forward to the claimants’ solicitors “copies of all emails that they have received into any non-Capita email account from any email account at Capita (including their own)” (emphasis added). Continue reading

REUTERS | Russell Cheyne

Holiday pay and working time. In a decision with potentially huge ramifications for misclassified workers, the ECJ has held that workers who are wrongly told they have no right to paid holiday may carry their holiday rights over indefinitely, and be paid in lieu, on termination, for any untaken holiday over their entire period of employment.  In another working time case, the ECJ has followed the Advocate General’s opinion that that a weekly rest period may be given on any day during the seven-day reference period, and does not always have to be granted on the seventh day following six consecutive working days.

Discrimination by statutory bodies. The Supreme Court has held that an employment tribunal has  jurisdiction to hear a doctor’s discrimination claims against the General Medical Council (GMC). As the claim related to the merits of the decision (as opposed to its legality or the way in which the decision was reached), a tribunal provided the natural and obvious remedy. The Supreme Court also held that a Police Misconduct Panel does not have judicial immunity against a discrimination claim by a police officer. The decision has implications for other statutory bodies charged with hearing cases of professional misconduct.

Continue reading