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).
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.
Immigration status and the right to rent a property (R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)
As part of the Home Office’s ‘hostile environment’ towards those without leave to remain in the UK, the Immigration Act 2014 prevents landlords from renting property to people who do not have leave to enter or remain in the UK. A body representing the interests of immigrants challenged this, arguing that the law breached both equality and human rights legislation because it causes landlords to discriminate against potential tenants on the grounds of their nationality and/or their race. This may happen, for example, because landlords think they do not look or sound British, even if they are not disqualified from renting.
NHS regulations require most non-EU citizens to pay up to 150 percent of the cost of healthcare treatment. A man who was being treated for cancer challenged this in the courts, arguing that the regulations did not comply with equality laws.
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.
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.
Preventing estate agents using ‘No DSS’ policies to discriminate against renters (J v X Estate Agents)
A female disabled renter successfully challenged an estate agent’s ‘No DSS’ policy on grounds it indirectly discriminated against her because of her sex and disability. Women and disabled people are more likely to be in receipt of housing benefit than men and non-disabled people, and as a result of the policy, blocked from renting many properties.
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.
Can an employer lawfully treat an employee less favourably, including dismissing them, because of behaviour in their private life which runs contrary to the employer’s religion or belief?