Employment & HR Article
21 November, 2017
Metropolitan Police v Denby UKEAT/0314/16/RN 
The Claimant, a male officer, was leader of a group within a local force which was consisted of mainly male officers. There was a clear deficiency in gender diversity within this particular group of officers.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Maxine De Brunner, had concerns over the lack of gender equality within the group referred to above after a series of allegations were made surrounding the claiming of overtime, amongst other things. Ms. De Brunner's response was deemed to be far stricter than her response to similar complaints raised against a female officer around overtime, which formed the basis of the Claimant's discrimination claim.
The Employment Tribunal found that Ms. De Brunner had exerted influence of a discriminatory nature on a more junior decision maker in the decision to refer the Claimant for an investigation into potentially criminal conduct.
One of the Defendant's grounds of Appeal within the EAT proceedings was that the Employment Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of case law on this point (CLFIS v Reynolds), specifically that the junior decision maker was an "innocent agent" and did not act with discriminatory motivation.
The EAT failed to agree with this assertion, judging the principle in CFLIS to have been properly applied by the Employment Tribunal. The EAT gave the Claimant leave to amend his pleading on the sixth day of proceedings in order to take into account the inclusion of Ms De Brunner as a joint decision maker.
The EAT, in its judgement, stated that the CFLIS principle should not be used as a mechanism in order to escape liability following instances of deliberately opaque decision making.
This represents a clear warning to staff members charged with hearing disciplinary hearing to ensure that they are not influenced by other members of staff (more senior or not) as this could present problems if the matter proceeds to a Tribunal where it will be thoroughly scrutinised.
If you are looking for any more information with regards to our services view our Education section. You can also contact Ruth Rule-Mullen in our Education department via email or phone on 01772 220195. Alternatively send any question through to Forbes Solicitors via our online Contact Form.
27 Jul 2018
Employment & HR
The Employment Tribunal (ET) is an independent judicial body established to resolve disputes between employers…
We find that the Forbes team take a pragmatic and supportive approach and enjoy working with their team.
Kepak Convenience Foods
We approached Forbes Solicitors on a recommendation because as a small independent organisation we needed clear guidance and backing on HR matters.
Piccadilly Garden & Support Service
The Forbes team were fantastic, the work and effort they put in was impressive and I was made to feel at ease throughout the proceedings. I can not thank the Forbes team enough
Without doubt Jonathan Holden is like a security blanket. He understands that schools need to act in the best interest of school as a whole
Brenda P Allen
Jennifer was great and worked beyond the call of duty. No faults.
I will keep promoting you and your services because I'm fully committed to the quality of your work and the impact that it has in school.
Ashton Community Science College
Amy Stokes was more than helpful throughout the whole process - Thank you Amy.
Forbes are proactive in relation to changes in legislation and keep me informed via regular seminars, updates and bulletins.
Business Support Manager
Birchall Catering Supplies Ltd
I have always found everyone at Forbes to be approachable, helpful and professional, and would have no hesitation in recommending them to any other business
E A Foulds Limited
May I say how much the employment team at Forbes have helped Samlesbury Hall with staff issues over the past ten years.
...we have found Forbes to be an excellent team of people to work with, fully understanding our needs and goals.
Apeks Marine Equipment Ltd.