Discrimination Payouts

Uncertain

There have been several threads on here recently where I, amongst others, have pointed out that compensation payments for sex or race discrimination are unlimited and can be substantial.

Several predictable regulars, with their characteristic arrogance and ignorance, have dismissed this and told us how they would get round it.

Perhaps they should look at the BBC News website today.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8616866.stm

One person told us he would avoid a claim for pregnancy discrimination by lying. He might like to look at an earlier article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8359390.stm

woody01

Uncertain wrote: »

There have been several threads on here recently where I, amongst others, have pointed out that compensation payments for sex or race discrimination are unlimited and can be substantial.

Several predictable regulars, with their characteristic arrogance and ignorance, have dismissed this and told us how they would get round it.

Perhaps they should look at the BBC News website today.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8616866.stm

One person told us he would avoid a claim for pregnancy discrimination by lying. He might like to look at an earlier article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8359390.stm

The only ingornace and arrogance comes from you. You delve into this sphere with only opinion and zero facts.......a classic armchair layabout that values only their own ill informed views.

You seem to read things that aren't even in print, and you know very little regarding employment law.
There was no suggestion of 'lying', just the fact that any decision would be near on impossible to prove.

Neither of these articles support your illustrious claims.

I have work to get on with now. As much as it is amusing to read your constant whining, you really are very stupid.

jdturk

I don't think this was aimed at myself because I wouldn't advocate either of what has happened in those cases but I would like to point out that one case was November 09 and the other case the award has not been paid out as far as I am aware yet and could be upto £100k but is more likely to be substantially lower.

Pete111

This case is an odd one to use as an cast iron example of a errant employer in the manner you have done OP. Personally I think the army is absolutely correct in expecting it's soldiers to not go awol - in the military, such discipline is vital.

To me this is only a good example of the obvious shortcomings of applying civilian employment law to our armed forces

Also, where has racial discrimination come into this?

dmg24

I have not read the threads in question (or the given links), but it is inevitable that where an employee complains of discrimination that the employer will do everything to avoid or defend such a claim. Whether it be right or wrong, most employers are in the business of making a profit, and hence do not wish to pay out compensation to ex employees!

I actually think it is healthy to have both sides of the argument stated. All too many claimants think that their cases are cast iron, though in reality this is rarely true. Therefore when someone gives an opposing viewpoint, either as devils advocate or because they disagree with the claimant, it gives the OP an opportunity to see both sides of the argument, and indeed what they are likely to encounter if they go to ET.

jdturk

thankfully she only got 17k

mountainofdebt

tbh I think its a shame she got £17K .......17p would have been more like it; after all this case has already cost £100K.

Personally and I know I will get shot down in flames for this but I honestly believe that women + children + career in the miltary forces don't mix, especially where both parents are in the military.

jdturk

mountainofdebt wrote: »

tbh I think its a shame she got £17K .......17p would have been more like it; after all this case has already cost £100K.

QUOTE]

I agree but considering most reports were shouting about 100k and she wanted 1 million the MOD will be happy with the result.

Uncertain

jdturk wrote: »

thankfully she only got 17k

I don't entirey disagree but this was not the point of my original post. The reason I thought this was an interesting one is because is shows (rightly or wrongly) that discrimination laws apply virtually everywhere - even the armed forces.

The pay out could have been huge but the appeal clearly decided on a more modest amount having looked at the individual circumstances. Even then, it is about 3.5 times the average unfair dismissal award where no discrimination is involved.

OK £17K is nothing to the MoD but even that amount plus legal costs could do a lot of damage to a small struggling business.

jdturk

Uncertain wrote: »

I don't entirey disagree but this was not the point of my original post. The reason I thought this was an interesting one is because is shows (rightly or wrongly) that discrimination laws apply virtually everywhere - even the armed forces.

The pay out could have been huge but the appeal clearly decided on a more modest amount having looked at the individual circumstances. Even then, it is about 3.5 times the average unfair dismissal award where no discrimination is involved.

OK £17K is nothing to the MoD but even that amount plus legal costs could do a lot of damage to a small struggling business.

I know that wasn't why you were posting but even so 17k is a good result for the MOD