header-logo header-logo

25 September 2015
Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Caste discrimination claim victory

Landmark employment tribunal decision provides hope for victims

An Indian domestic worker has won her discrimination claim in the first employment tribunal case to recognise caste discrimination.

Ruling in Tirkey v Chandok and another (ET/3400174/2013), the tribunal upheld claims for harassment on the grounds of race, religious discrimination, unfair dismissal, pay claims and breaches of the Working Time Directive.

Permila Tirkey was born in India to the low-caste Adivasi class, and was recruited from India by Mr and Mrs Chandhok. The tribunal found she was recruited because of who she was “by birth, by virtue of her inherited position in society”.

She was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, worked 18 hours per day, slept on a foam mattress in the children’s bedroom and was paid £0.11 per hour. She had her passport confiscated, was not allowed to leave the house unaccompanied, had no control over her bank account and was not allowed to contact her family or practise her Christian faith.

The case was referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which held in January that caste discrimination may be prohibited under the Equality Act 2010 where it forms part of an individual’s ethnic origin (UKEAT/0190/14/KN). The Chandhoks had argued that this part of the claim should be struck out because caste was not a protected characteristic.

Chris Milsom of Cloisters, barrister for Tirkey, says: “Those who have closely followed the legislative history of the Equality Act will recall that the government’s original rationale for refusing explicit prohibition of caste-based discrimination was that there was no evidence of it taking place in the UK.

“The damning findings of the employment tribunal render that stance untenable. Where such discrimination exists its victims must be protected.”

He called on the Legal Aid Agency to do more to fund cases involving domestic servitude, noting that funding was refused for 17 months because the claim was not considered of “sufficient importance or seriousness” and Ms Tirkey could represent herself.

He says: “It is our experience that victims seeking to hold their traffickers to account find their applications for legal aid are routinely refused.”

Ms Tirkey was represented by the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit.

Issue: 7669 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll