header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008 / Juliet Carp
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

The Right to choose not to

Should employees be punished for standing up for their views? Juliet Carp reports

Employees complain about all sorts of things: hours, clothes, food, customers, even colleagues with a different background, lifestyle or opinion. Generally, an employee must comply with his employer's instructions. If the employee refuses to do so, his employer might find a way to accommodate him. If this is impractical, or the employer is unwilling to help, it could respond by instigating disciplinary proceedings, leading to a warning or dismissal. Less formal reactions from managers or colleague might include verbal abuse, a smaller bonus or a lost promotion. The employment protection available to objectors depends on the work they are expected to do, the reasons for objection and the employer’s response. Andrew McClintock, a justice of the peace who objected to the possibility that he might be required to place children with same sex couples, claimed that he had been discriminated against contrary to the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief ) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660) (the regulations). On 31 October the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in McClintock v Department

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

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