*/
Employment – Discrimination. The claimant brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) against the respondent nursery for indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. She asserted that she had been discriminated against because of the dress code said to be imposed by the respondent which prevented her from wearing a full-length jilbab (a garment worn as part of her Muslim religious beliefs) and meant that she was unable to accept the respondent's offer of employment. The tribunal, in dismissing her claim, found that the requirement that garments did not go to the floor, thereby creating a possible trip hazard, was not a requirement or criterion which had placed Muslim women, or the claimant in particular, at a disadvantage and, in any event, it had been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Employment Appeal, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held, among other things, that the tribunal had not erred in its identification of the relevant provision, criterion or practice and had not made a perverse finding of fact.
Employment – Discrimination. The claimant brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) against the respondent nursery for indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. She asserted that she had been discriminated against because of the dress code said to be imposed by the respondent which prevented her from wearing a full-length jilbab (a garment worn as part of her Muslim religious beliefs) and meant that she was unable to accept the respondent's offer of employment. The tribunal, in dismissing her claim, found that the requirement that garments did not go to the floor, thereby creating a possible trip hazard, was not a requirement or criterion which had placed Muslim women, or the claimant in particular, at a disadvantage and, in any event, it had been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Employment Appeal, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held, among other things, that the tribunal had not erred in its identification of the relevant provision, criterion or practice and had not made a perverse finding of fact.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
