UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about Victimisation

Agency workers: checklist of rights

Agency workers: checklist of rights This Checklist sets out: • the rights that an agency worker will have under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010, SI 2010/93 (AWR 2010) (see: Rights under AWR 2010 below) • the rights that an agency worker may have under other relevant legislation (see: Rights under other legislation below), and • the specific exclusions that apply (see: Exclusions below) An agency worker may also have rights as an employee or as a worker, provided they meet the requirements of the relevant definition. For further information: • on the meaning of ‘employee’, see Practice Note: Employee status • on what is a worker, see Practice Note: Worker status • on the rights that an agency worker may have as a employee or as a worker, see: Employees and workers: checklist of rights Rights under AWR 2010 For the purposes of AWR 2010, SI 2010/93, an agency worker is an individual: • supplied by a temporary work agency to work temporarily for, and under the supervision and direction...

View the related practice notes about Victimisation

Victimisation

This Practice Note examines unlawful victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).Domestic laws that have been made to implement UK obligations under EU law (such as the obligation to implement Directive 2000/78/EC, the Equal Treatment Framework Directive, which EqA 2010 implements) are assimilated law. For further information, see Practice Note: Assimilated law.The purpose of the victimisation provisions is to protect an individual who speaks up to assert their rights under EqA 2010 and are treated badly in retaliation. For example:•a woman suggests to her (male) manager that he did not promote her because of her gender•the manager responds by dismissing her•he says that he did not do so because of her gender, but rather because she had the impertinence to suggest that he had discriminated against herThe manager’s act is not direct or indirect discrimination, but it is unlawful victimisation (see: Victimisation defined, below).For information on other forms of discrimination and prohibited conduct under EqA 2010, see: Prohibited conduct (discrimination etc)—overview.For information:•on the circumstances in which claims of victimisation...

Digital Planning in England

Digital Planning in England Note that this Practice Note was last updated in April 2025. Introduction In October 2023, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023) gained Royal Assent and became the first legislation to seek to define data standards and data software. Since then, the intersection of planning and digitisation has only increased in scale and scope. In the last four months, the government has published the ‘AI Opportunities Action Plan’, has issued a policy statement on the Data Use and Access Bill, while the forthcoming Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will have digital implications for energy and transport networks and smart city initiatives. The inexorable progress towards automation and digitisation has many benefits: diverting human resources to where they are most useful, extending the reach of the planning process and improving participation, and helping to understand and mitigate environmental issues. It also challenges existing norms on issues including equalities, human rights, public sector decision-making and probity in planning. Given the scale and scope of coming changes, it...

View the related precedents about Victimisation

Acas—settlement of tribunal claim (COT3)

Acas—settlement of tribunal claim (COT3) Case Number: Agreement following conciliation on a complaint of [insert details of the complaints made by the claimant, eg unfair dismissal, sex discrimination etc] made by the claimant to the Employment Tribunal Claimant Respondent Name: Name: Address: Address: Settlement reached as a result of conciliation action. The Claimant and the Respondent have agreed as follows: 1 [For the purposes of this settlement, ‘Group Company’ means [any holding company of] the Respondent and any subsidiary of the Respondent[ or of any such holding company, each] as defined by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.] 2 Subject to and conditional upon the terms set out in this settlement, the Respondent will, without any admission of liability, pay to the [Claimant OR Claimant’s solicitors, [insert details of Claimant’s solicitors],] the sum of £[set out details] (less any required deductions for income tax and primary class 1 (employee) National Insurance contributions) within [insert number of days, eg seven] days of the date of...

List of issues to be determined

List of issues to be determined In the employment tribunals Case no: [Insert case number] Between: [insert name of claimant] Claimant and [insert name of respondent] Respondent ____________________________ LIST OF ISSUES ___________________________ Equality Act 2010 claims—jurisdictional Issues Time limits 1 Have the Claimant's claims of [insert details of type of claim, eg disability] discrimination been brought within three months of the acts complained of, taking into account the effect of the ‘stop the clock’ provisions in respect of early conciliation? (EqA 2010, ss 123(1)(a) and 140B)) 2 In respect of the Claimant’s complaints which are based on the Respondent’s failure to do something, namely [insert details of complaints based on omissions], when is the Respondent to be treated as having decided those things? (EqA 2010, s 123(4)) 3 In respect of any complaints which are out of time, do they form part of a continuing act, taken together with acts which are in time? (EqA 2010, s 123(3)(a)) 4 If the complaints were not submitted in time, would it...

View the related News about Victimisation

Employment weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) a new Employment Rights Bill factsheet on changes to the statutory sick pay structure, (2) the EHRC interim update on the practical implications of For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers Supreme Court decision, and confirmation that an updated EHRC Code of Practice is expected in summer, (3) analysis by Annie Davis of Old Square Chambers of Court of Appeal guidance on Article 14 ECHR challenges to employment legislation, (4) examination by the EAT of the benchmark for costs orders in discrimination claims, (5) an EAT judgment addressing the question of relevance when determining applications for information and disclosure of documents, (6) an EAT decision that acquiescence over businesses getting struck-off can be unreasonable conduct for the purposes of a costs order, (7) our new Practice Note on employers’ obligations to manage workplace temperature, (8) dates for your diary, and (9) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

Employment weekly highlights—17 April 2025

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) an ET claim over a military reservists right not to be subjected to a detriment under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, (2) the closure of the Cabinet Office consultation on reforms to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, (3) commentary from Dr Michael Foran, University of Glasgow, and Joanne Moseley, Irwin Mitchell LLP on the Supreme Court decision that the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ under the Equality Act 2010 mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man, (4) an analysis of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance on anonymisation and pseudonymisation by Alex Jameson and Steph Ong of Bird & Bird, (5) the temporary closure of the Manchester ET office at Alexandra House, (6) the publication of the Practice Directions on the presentation of claims, responses and statutory appeals which take effect from 21 May 2025, (7) updated guidance from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), (8) the IRLR highlights for...