Discrimination - 1970- 1979

These cases are extracted from a very large database. The entries on that database are now being published individually to the main swarb.co.uk website in a much improved form. As cases are published here, the entry here will be replaced by a link to the same case in that improved form on swarb.co.uk. In addition the swarb.co.uk site includes very substantial numbers of cases after 2000. Please take the time to look.  

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 06 June 2013. These case are being transferred one by one to the main swarb.co.uk site which presents them better, with links to full text where we have it, and much improved cross referencing.

Holister -v- National Farmers Union [1970] ICR 542
1970	Discrimination	1 Citers

Griggs -v- Duke Power Company (1971) 401 US 424
1971	International, Discrimination	1 Citers
	(US) The court examined the arguments relating to indirect discrimination.

Gabrielle Defrenne -v- Belgian State; ECJ 25-May-1971

Ealing London Borough Council -v- Race Relations Board [1971] UKHL 3; [1972] AC 342
16 Dec 1971 HL Lord Donovan, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Cross of Chelsea, Lord Kilbrandon	Housing, Discrimination	1 Citers
	The council operated a housing policy which required applicants for housing tbe British nationals. Mr Zesko, a Polish national, complained that this was race discrimination. Held: The House declined to interpret "national origins" in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1968 so as to include "nationality": discriminating against the non-British was allowed.
	Race Relations Act 1968 1(1)
	Link[s] omitted

Race Relations Board -v- Applin [1973] 1 QB 815
1973 CA Lord Denning MR	Discrimination	1 Cites 1 Citers

Charter -v- Race Relations Board [1973] AC 868
1973	Discrimination

Abernethy -v- Mott Hay & Anderson; CA 1974

Applin -v- Race Relations Board [1974] UKHL 3; [1975] AC 259; [1974] 2 All ER 73
27 Mar 1974 HL Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon	Discrimination	Casemap
	A couple cared for children without fee who were referred to them by a local authority. The children they cared for included coloured children. Two individuals sought to prevent the couple caring for coloured children. The question for the House of Lords was whether the attempt by the individuals to prevent the couple so doing was a breach of the Race Relations Act 1968, whether, in caring for the children in their home without fee, the couple were "concerned with the provision to. . a section of the public . . goods, facilities or services". Held: (Majority - Lord Wilbeforce dissenting) Even though the couple might be seen as providing goods, facilities and services, within their home, the Act would not regard the members of the household itself as a “section of the public”. The private household was beyond the reach of the Act. What made their household different, and brought it within the reach of the Act, was the public nature of the service they offered the children. The children were referred to them by a public authority. They might care for as many as fifty children each year. Their Lordships noted that the Act did not lay down a line of separation between the public and private sphere and that the facts of the case made it difficult to tell.
	Race Relations Act 1968 2
	[ Bailii ]

Massachusetts Board of Retirement -v- Murgia (1976) 438 US 285
1976	International, Discrimination	Casemap 1 Citers
	(United States of America) It can be necessary to distinguish between those grounds of discrimination which prima facie appear to offend our notions of the respect due to the individual and those which merely require some rational justification.

Sorbie -v- Trust House Forte Hotels; EAT 1976

Defrenne -v- Sabena (No 2); ECJ 08-Apr-1976

Capper Pass Ltd -v- Lawton [1976] UKEAT 346_76_1076; [1977] 2 WLR 26; [1977] QB 852; [1976] IRLR 366; (1976) 11 ITR 316; [1977] 2 All ER 11
19 Oct 1976 EAT	Employment, Discrimination
	[ Bailii ]

Dugdale -v- Kraft Foods Ltd [1976] UKEAT 277_76_1076; [1976] 1 WLR 1288; (1979) 11 ITR 309; [1977] 1 All ER 454; [1977] IRLR 160
28 Oct 1976 EAT	Employment, Discrimination
	Link[s] omitted

Ainsworth -v- Glass Tubes Components Ltd [1977] ICR 347
1977 EAT	Discrimination	Casemap 1 Citers
	In an equal pay claim, it is for the applicant to choose the man with whom she wishes to compare herself.

Amies -v- Inner London Education Authority [1977] ICR 308
1977 EAT Bristow J	Employment, Discrimination	Casemap
	A female art teacher and deputy department head applied in 1975 to be department head at her school. In September a man was appointed instead. The 1975 Act came into force on 29th December. On 1st January 1996 she complained to the Tribunal on the basis that by appointing a man the employers discriminated against her by reason of her sex contrary to Sections 1(1)(a), 4(1) and 6(1)(c) and (2)(a) of the Act. Held. Bristow J asked: "Was the discrimination a single act, or an `act extending over a period,' a continuous act?" and answered: "There is nothing in the definition section of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the sections to which that refers to require us to give any other than the ordinary common sense meaning to the provisions of the Act. The applicant's complaint here is that by not appointing her, and by appointing a man with lesser qualifications, the employers have unlawfully discriminated against her. She herself has in our judgment given the right definition of the `act of discrimination' of which she complained to the tribunal under section 63(1). Like any other discrimination by act or omission, the failure to appoint her, and the appointment of him, must have continuing consequences. She is not head of the department; he has been ever since October 13, 1975. But it is the consequences of the appointment which are the continuing element in the situation, not the appointment itself. That there may be discrimination by an act `extending over a period,' that is, a continuing act, is clear from section 76 (6) (b). This provides that for the purpose of calculating the period within which a complaint must be presented to the industrial tribunal `any act extending over a period shall be treated as done at the end of that period.' An illustration of what the legislature had in mind as an act extending over a period can be seen in the provisions of section 6 (1), which makes it: `unlawful for a person, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against a woman - (a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment . .' So, if the employers operated a rule that the position of head of department was open to men only, for as long as the rule was in operation there would be a continuing discrimination and anyone considering herself to have been discriminated against because of the rule would have three months from the time when the rule was abrogated within which to bring the complaint. In contrast, in the applicant's case clearly the time runs from the date of appointment of her male rival. There was no continuing rule which prevented her appointment. It is the omission to appoint her and the appointment of him which is the subject of her complaint."
	Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Schmidt -v- Austick's Bookshops [1977] IRLR 360; (1978) ICR 85
1977 EAT Phillips J	Discrimination
	The bookshop company's employment rules prohibited trousers for female workers, a dress code which was upheld by the Tribunal. Held. There was no detriment. As there was no comparable restriction for men it was not possible to say that women were treated less favourably than men. Phillips J said: "if one considers the situation of the men and the situation of the women there was no comparable restriction which could be applied to the men, equivalent to that applied to the women preventing them from wearing trousers, which could make it possible to lead to the conclusion that the women were being treated less favourably than the men."

Peake -v- Automotive Products Ltd [1977] UKEAT 443_76_1702
17 Feb 1977 EAT	Employment, Discrimination
	Link[s] omitted

Smith -v- Macarthys Ltd
14 Dec 1977 EAT	Discrimination, Employment	Casemap 1 Cites
	Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of £50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after an interval of four months, received a salary of £60 per week. She brought proceedings before the industrial tribunal on the basis of the 1970 Act. The tribunal held that the applicant was employed on like work with her predecessor and ordered Macarthys to pay the applicant a salary equal to his salary. Held: The employer's appeal was dismissed.
	Equal Pay Act 1970 - Council Directive 75/117/EEC

Zarcynska -v- Levy [1978] IRLR 532
1978 EAT Kilner Brown J	Discrimination	Casemap
	Race Relations Act 1976

Defrenne -v- Sabena Airlines [1979] ECR 1365; C-149/77; R-149/77; [1978] EUECJ R-149/77
15 Jun 1978 ECJ	European, Employment, Discrimination	Casemap
	LMA Ms Defrenne was an air hostess employed by SABENA, a Belgian airline company. She brought an action against the airline based on Art.119 [now141] EC. Ms Defrenne claimed that in paying their male stewards more than their air hostesses, when they performed identical tasks, Sabena were in breach of Art.119EC. The question to the ECJ was whether, and in what context, Art.199EC was directly effective. The ECJ held "the prohibition on discrimination between men and women applies not only to the action of public authorities but also extends to all agreements which are intended to regulate paid labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals" Europa Article 119 of the EEC Treaty, which is limited to the question of pay discrimination between men and women workers, constitutes a special rule, whose application is linked to precise factors. It cannot be interpreted as prescribing, in addition to equal pay, equality in respect of the other working conditions applicable to men and women. The fact that the fixing of certain conditions of employment - such as a special age-limit - may have pecuniary consequences is not sufficient to bring such conditions within the field of application of article 119, which is based on the close connection which exists between the nature of the services provided and the amount of remuneration. Fundamental personal human rights form part of the general principles of community law, the observance of which the court has a duty to ensure. The elimination of discrimination based on sex forms part of those fundamental rights. However, it is not for the court to enforce the observance of that rule of non-discrimination in respect of relationships between employer and employee which are a matter exclusively for national law.
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

Zarczynska -v- Levy [1979] ICR 184; [1978] IRLR 532
1979	Discrimination, Employment	Casemap 1 Citers
	A white barmaid was dismissed for refusing to turn away black customers. She claimed in race discrimination. Held: Treating people less favourably not because of their race but because of the race of others is also discrimination on grounds of race. The black customers were not in fact treated less favourably, as the white employee refused to carry out the unlawful order to treat them less favourably. It was the white employee who was treated less favourably "on racial grounds" because he was dismissed for refusing to carry out his employer's racially discriminatory policy or practice to discriminate against others on racial grounds.

Science Research Council -v- Nassé; Science Research Council -v- Nasse [1979] ICR 921; [1979] 3 All ER 673; [1980] AC 1028; [1979] 3 WLR 762; [1979] UKHL 9
1 Nov 1979 HL Templeman, Salmon, Watkins LJJ	Employment, Litigation Practice, Discrimination	1 Cites
	Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination. Held: The court ought not to order breach of properly given confidences unless it is necessary in the interests of justice. Lord Salmon said: "If the tribunal is satisfied that it is necessary to order certain documents to be disclosed and inspected in order fairly to dispose of the proceedings, then, in my opinion, the law requires that such an order should be made; and the fact that the documents are confidential is irrelevant. The law has always recognised that it is of the greatest importance from the point of view of public policy that proceedings in the courts or before the tribunals shall be fairly disposed of. This, no doubt, is why the law has never accorded privilege against discovery and inspection of confidential documents which are necessary for fairly disposing of the proceedings."
	Employment Protection Act 1975 - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Race Relations Act 1976 - European Convention of Human Rights 6
	[ Bailii ]