Jordans has teamed up with Barrister Allan Roberts from Guildhall Chambers to create this helpful tool which enables users to simply and quickly estimate the likely pension loss for claimants in Employment Tribunal cases.
Try out this free service today!
Dismissals or any other detriment imposed because of the way a
person has made complaints of discrimination may not amount to victimization if
the way the complaints were made can be genuinely separated from the complaints
themselves (Martin v Devonshires
Solicitors). But, says the EAT in this case, Martin was an exceptional case where Mr Martin had repeatedly made
false allegations of discrimination based on his paranoid delusions about
events which had never happened. These wasted management time and were likely
to continue to do so.
W made repeated complaints of discrimination. Two of them were
partially upheld. He was eventually dismissed. The tribunal rejected W’s
complaint of victimization, saying that the facts of this case were on ‘all
fours’ with those in Martin.
The EAT disagreed. Although most of his complaints were found
to be false, W genuinely believed they had occurred and this was not a case,
like Martin, where the complaints
were based on paranoid delusions about events which had never happened. Martin, according to the EAT, was
Different divisions of the EAT, however, have
different views on this. In Panayiotou v
Chief Constable of Hampshire,  IRLR 500, the EAT comments there is no
need for the circumstances to be ‘exceptional’ to enable disclosures to be
distinguished from the manner in which they were made.