header-logo header-logo

NLJ this week: A quartet of difficult discrimination cases

15 March 2024
Issue: 8063 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination , Bias , Equality
printer mail-detail
163757

Four thorny cases of discrimination come under Ian Smith’s microscope in this week’s NLJ ‘Employment law brief’

Smith, barrister and professor of employment law at the Norwich Law School, provides the lowdown on the quad of tricky cases.

They concern appropriate comparators and how they interact with the burden of proof; a complex European Court of Justice ruling ‘on the vexed question of bans on face coverings (with an orthodox statement of the law but facts showing how complex its application can be)’; the justification defence in age cases; and the meaning of ‘related to’ in harassment law.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll