Search Results for: CSCM-001 PDF 🐃 CSCM-001 Lernhilfe 🧦 CSCM-001 Buch 🦺 Suchen Sie auf der Webseite ⇛ www.itzert.com ⇚ nach { CSCM-001 } und laden Sie es kostenlos herunter 🎐CSCM-001 Probesfragen

Joseph England analyses the case of Wicked Vision Ltd v Rice [2024] EAT 29, in which the EAT re-confirms the Court of Appeal's decision in Osipov concerning a claimant's ability to claim for detriments that precede dismissal against a co-worker and against the corporate employer for its vicariously liability even if the losses that flow amount to those that flow from dismissal; and that a Claimant can claim for the detriment of dismissal against a co-worker.

The EAT however departs from the Court of Appeal in asserting that a Claimant is very unlikely to be able to claim for the detriment of dismissal against the corporate employer, having applied scrutiny to the Court's ratio in Osipov.

Craig Ludlow on the case of Hargreaves v (1) Evolve Housing & Support (2) Mr Simon McGrath, in which the EAT reminds us how difficult it is to get claims struck out before Employment Tribunals.

Specifically, in this case, cogent evidence was needed to support the assertion that a fair trial was not possible because of the claimant's conduct, instead of simply relying on the ET to make this assumption.

Mark Green follows up an important change in the law since his £350,000 win in the associative indirect discrimination case of Follows.

S19A Equality Act 2010 expressly permits such claims and therefore provides important clarity for carers and others who may suffer indirect discrimination by association.

Sarah Clarke considers the case of Jones v The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care EA-2022-000744-JOJ, which provides a useful reminder of the very wide discretion given to employment tribunals when determining whether or not a claim had been brought within such time as was just and equitable, and appellate courts should be slow to interfere with the exercise of this discretion.

Jo Laxton analyses the case of Bauhaus Educational Services Limited v Elemide [2023] EAT 161, in which the EAT considers the guidance in Minnoch to determine if a claimant had complied with the terms of an Unless Order.

Stephen Wyeth reviews Rentokil Initial UK Ltd v Miller [2024] EAT 37 which deals with the issue of whether trial periods can be a reasonable adjustment in the context of existing case law and offers some useful discussion about how the burden of proof shifts in such cases.

Ben Amunwa analyses the case of Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (t/a Global Artists) & Anor [2024] EAT 30, in which the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, including its key finding that where a protected belief forms part of the context but not part of the reason for a decision, that will be insufficient to establish religion or belief discrimination.

Sarah Clarke considers the case of Vaultex v Bialas EA-2022- 001258-AT, in which HHJ Auerbach set aside a finding of unfair dismissal on the basis that the tribunal judge had substituted his own view and erred in law in respect of the range of reasonable responses test.

Sarah acted for the successful Appellant.

Robin Pickard reviews the case of Scottish Water v Edgar [2024] EAT 32, in which the EAT reminds us that there is no substitute for a full and thorough consideration of all of the evidence when determining “the cause of the difference in pay”.

Emma Greening summarises the case of Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd v Andrew Wright [2024] EAT 28, in which the EAT considers if an employee can be considered to have ‘sought’ to take parental leave if they have not yet given formal notice.