header-logo header-logo

Caste discrimination claim victory

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

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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll