Challenging a Council's housing list policy (R (TW) and R (Gullu) v London Borough of Hillingdon)
Hillingdon Council’s housing rules said that a person must have lived in the area for at least ten years before they could apply for a house. The council refused two people, a refugee who had been given permission to stay in the UK and an Irish Traveller, on these grounds. We saw this as discriminatory and we intervened in their cases in the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal.
Challenging the ‘two-child limit’ rule (R (on the application of SC and CB and their children) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 provides that child tax credit and its replacement universal credit will not be payable to any 3rd or subsequent children in a family born after 6th April 2017 (subject to some exceptions). This is known as the ‘two child rule’.
SC and CB each had a baby after 6th April 2017 and do not receive any tax credits for those children.
Are British civilians employed by the MoD in Cyprus protected by the Equality Act? (Holloway & Ors v Ministry of Defence)
A group of British civilians working on a military base in Cyprus brought claims of discrimination against the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Before considering their claim, the Employment Tribunal had to decide whether GB equality laws applied to this group of workers. The first Employment Tribunal found that the Equality Act did apply to them. However, the MoD successfully challenged this in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. This meant that the case was remitted to the ET to be reconsidered.
Clarifying the protections of the Equality Act for migrant workers (Taiwo & Anor v Olaigbe & Ors)
A woman who came to the UK as a migrant domestic worker was abused and exploited by her employer. She successfully brought several claims against the employer, but her claim for race discrimination did not succeed. We supported her to challenge this in the Supreme Court.
Immigration rules: extending domestic violence protection to refugees (R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
The wife of a refugee was granted temporary leave to remain in the UK. When domestic violence forced her to leave her husband, immigration rules meant she was no longer eligible for indefinite leave to remain. Had her partner been a British citizen or had settled immigration status, she would still be eligible for indefinite leave to remain under the Home Office’s domestic violence concession. However, the concession did not apply to partners of refugees. The woman unsuccessfully challenged the rules in the Court of Session (Outer House), and brought an appeal to the Court of Session (Inner House).
Challenging the Home Secretary’s review of the way payments are calculated for asylum seekers (R (Nyamayaro and Okolo) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department)
An asylum seeker lost 30 per cent of her financial support after the Home Office changed how it calculates payments. She raised a Judicial Review, which was unsuccessful. She appealed. We intervened in the case because we were concerned that the Home Secretary hadn’t given enough consideration to the impact on human rights or equality laws.
DWP signs legally binding agreement to improve equality and diversity in the workplace (Department for Work and Pensions section 23 agreement)
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) entered a legally binding agreement with us after a former DWP employee won her claim of direct discrimination on the basis of age and race, racial harassment and victimisation.
Agreement with Pontins to prevent racial discrimination (Pontins Section 23 Agreement)
Britannia Jinky Jersey Limited, owner of Pontins, signed a legally binding agreement with us to prevent racial discrimination after we became aware of discriminatory practices, including an ‘undesirable guest list’, being used by the organisation.
Stopping a school from using a discriminatory hairstyle policy (Ruby Williams vs Urswick School)
A pupil, Ruby, took her school to court after it enforced a uniform policy that banned Afro hair of excessive volume. When the school didn’t respond to the claim, the court issued a default judgment in her favour and the family reached a settlement. We funded the case through court and secured a legally binding agreement with the school to ensure it ended the discriminatory policy and considered factors such as race and religion when determining what a ‘reasonable’ hairstyle was.