At that stage, in or around June 2013, a gentleman by the name of Mr Bor, who worked for the Respondent in a finance capacity, required hospital treatment and went to hospital for an operation.The date or period of his absence as a result is not entirely clear, but it must have been around June 2013.
The Decision of the Employment Tribunal, sitting in Manchester in January 2015 over four days including one day for deliberations, was signed and sent to the parties on 4 February 2015 and was a Decision of Employment Judge Ross sitting with Mr Cook and Ms Khan.2. The Claimants are husband and wife, Mr and Mrs Geller.On 10 July 2013, Mr Geller informed the Respondent's Dr Kaye that his wife was pregnant.That was an issue that was relevant to issues in the proceedings before the Tribunal but is no longer directly relevant and is now merely part of the background.7.The second was that it had done so by making unlawful deductions from her wages.The ET's judgment on the two limbs were as follows: First limb: The ET found that the reason why the Respondent failed to acknowledge the Claimant as an employee was because the Respondent genuinely believed that she was working on an ad hoc self-employed basis submitting timesheets to the Respondent and the reason for the less favourable treatment in not treating her as an employee was unrelated to her sex.Second limb: when the Tribunal dealt with the second limb of the claim, they did not include in their reasoning any consideration of possible unconscious or subconscious discrimination, yet this was a case where the explanation of the employer called for that to be examined separately from the explanation that satisfied the Tribunal that there was no conscious discrimination.___________________Appeal No.
UKEAT/0190/15/JOJEMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALFLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AEAt the Tribunal On 23 March 2016Before THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KERR(SITTING ALONE)(1) GELLER(2) GELLER (APPELLANTS)YESHURUN HEBREW CONGREGATION (RESPONDENT)Transcript of Proceedings JUDGMENTFor the Appellants MR PAUL LIVINGSTON (of Counsel)Instructed by: Employment Rights Advice26 Mode Hill Lane Whitefield Manchester M45 8JEFor the Respondent MS LOUISE QUIGLEY (of Counsel)Instructed by: DWF LLP Solicitors1 Scott Place2 Hardman Street Manchester M3 3AASEX DISCRIMINATION - Direct SEX DISCRIMINATION - Inferring discrimination In a direct sex discrimination claim, the Tribunal had erroneously approached the question of subconscious discrimination by considering the subjective state of mind of the employer's representative, rather than whether it should conclude that there had been unconscious discrimination by drawing inferences from objective facts.1.
At this stage the Appellant had not yet been paid for the work that she had done for the Respondent, and she and her husband were chasing the Respondent for payment.
The evidence before the Tribunal included communications in emails and notes of meetings showing that the issue of how to remunerate the Appellant and in what sum, was unresolved as at the end of May 2013 but was being actively pursued by the Claimants.5.
Keywords sex discrimination Appeal against the dismissal of the Claimant's claim of direct sex discrimination. There were two limbs to the direct sex discrimination claim of the Claimant.
The first was that the Respondent had discriminated against her by failing to acknowledge her as an employee.
Second limb: The ET found it likely that a hypothetical comparator i.e.