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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll