A severely disabled man had his care package cut by the local council. It meant that he would lose a team of carers who had been supporting him to live independently for 20 years. We intervened to support his legal challenge that the decision broke equality and human rights laws and breached the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
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.
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.
When a woman discovered she was pregnant after being offered a job in the police force, the offer was withdrawn. We were concerned this amounted to discrimination and provided the woman with legal assistance to support her case.
Mental health and access to justice: what reasonable adjustments should be made? (Jade Anderson v Turning Point Eepro)
A woman had mental health issues while she in the process of bringing a claim for sex discrimination. Her claim was successful, but she felt that her compensation was insufficient. She took her case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), and then to the Court of Appeal. She argued that the Employment Tribunal’s failure to make adjustments for her disability had caused the case to be badly handled, so that she received inadequate compensation. Her appeals to the EAT and to the Court of Appeal were unsuccessful.
Self-employment: protecting the equality rights of self-employed people (Pimlico Plumbers and another v Smith )
We know that some companies have people working for them who are technically self-employed.
This meant that thousands of workers did not enjoy some of the employment rights and protections that employees do.
We supported a man who had worked on a self-employed basis for the same firm for six years.
When the firm refused to make adjustments to his work after a heart attack, he successfully took his disability discrimination case to the Employment Tribunal.
The firm appealed, arguing that the man was not protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Home repossession: what reasonable adjustments should mortgage providers make? (Green v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd )
A woman who became unable to work because she was depressed asked her mortgage provider to transfer her from a repayment mortgage to an interest-only plan. This would have reduced her monthly payments sufficiently that her housing benefit would cover it. The mortgage company refused. She challenged their decision, arguing that they had discriminated against her by refusing to make reasonable adjustments on the grounds of her depression.
A group of Irish Travellers were refused service in a pub because of their race. We supported them to bring a successful claim for race discrimination.
Immigration: children who are eligible for leave to remain whose parents have been convicted of a crime (KO (Nigeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Home Office policy says that children who are eligible to apply for leave to remain but whose parents are ‘foreign criminals’ must either be deported with the parent or remain in the UK without them. We are concerned that this breaches the child’s right to family life, and we intervened in a case seeking to challenge the Home Office policy.
Bedroom tax: under what circumstances is a spare room justifiable? (R (Daly and others) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
Housing benefit regulations reduce the amount of benefit available to people who have a spare bedroom. Seven people who had lost some of their benefit challenged the Department for Work and Pensions in the Supreme Court.