Post-Employment Victimisation & Discrimination is Unlawful

President Franklin D. Roosevelt would not travel on the 13th day of any month and would never host 13 guests at a meal. Napoleon and President Herbert Hoover were also triskaidekaphobic, with an abnormal fear of the number 13.
– Unknown

Friday the 13th, considered by many as one of the unluckiest days of the year, was upon us yesterday.  We published this post:

Proportionate Means of Achieving a Legitimate Aim

For those HR professionals that took the decision to stay tucked up in bed all day to avoid any potential Friday the 13th bad luck that may come their way, or alternatively, locked themselves in their drab hermetic-sealed office to ignore the superstitious chatter, we are giving them a second chance to embrace the Equality Act 2010 (EqA).

There will be those who administer the police injury Regulations – those indefatigable HR professionals that braved their fears yesterday and faced Friday 13th head on – who may have read the above post but still have the asinine view that the EqA does not apply to them: You know the sort!  their mantra, oft repeated, is … “we have a statutory duty… dontcha know! Anyway these medically retired officers have left – they can’t touch us with equality law“.

Oh dear.  How wrong can they be?

Dear reader, let us introduce you to the Court of Appeal decisions of Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd & Anor [2014] and Onu v Akwiwu & Anor [2014].

The Court of Appeal handed down these two judgements setting out important points of principle in equality law. In Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd & Anor [2014] (an age discrimination case) , heard alongside the conjoined appeals in Onu v Akwiwu & Anor [2014] (race discrimination case), the court found that the EqA does cover post-employment victimisation.

The EqA does provide for claims of post-employment victimisation, as required by the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC), the Race Directive (2000/43/EC) and the European Court of Justice.

Post-termination protection is conferred by Section 108 of the Equality Act 2010 and that section applies only where a relationship has previously existed between the parties.  For instance, the relationship between a police force and those it medically retired!

In particular, the Court of Appeal took into account:

  • –       at the time the act was drafted, post-employment victimisation was unlawful (Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc);
  • –       there was nothing suggesting that the government intended to change to law and remove this protection;
  • –       the Act’s explanatory notes suggested that post-employment victimisation was to be covered;
  • –       if it was not covered, the UK would be in breach of EU law; and
  • –       there is no rational basis for treating post-employment victimisation differently from post-termination discrimination and harassment.

Those not aligned with this truth are operating on a wrong perception of reality.

Coherence and internal logic are not notable attributes of the Friday 13th superstitions. Just like the film franchise series of the same name getting sillier and sillier, the failure of police forces to grasp their duty and to consider the EqA when dealing with those with injury awards will lead them into their own world of  never-ending horror sequels.





Post-Employment Victimisation & Discrimination is Unlawful
Tagged on:

5 thoughts on “Post-Employment Victimisation & Discrimination is Unlawful

  • 2017-02-01 at 10:49 am

    Hopefully, now that IODPA is here and more officers are becoming aware of the outrages that are carried out where IOD pensions are involved, and have been for so many years but becoming worse than ever, ALL of the shit will stop and the IOD pensions and regulations will be followed to the letter.

    As each officer is alerted to the wrongdoings of the HR and the SMP’s they will now have the chance to get that put right.

  • 2017-01-17 at 11:12 pm

    Yes Johnathon they are arrogant and it seems the only way they will sit up and take notice is if they are on the wrong end of a judgement from the Courts.

    They will not accept that they are in the wrong and they never have ever since HOC 46 was introduced. Even the Home Office backed away from that one and threw in the towel in the Slater case because it was a cause they could not win.

    The whole system is corrupt.

  • 2017-01-15 at 8:30 am

    Nicholas Weirz gives a presentation telling SMP’s that they have the powers of Coroners. This is is the same Weirz who was criticised by a High Court Judgement and is clearly referenced in the Crudace case.

    This is the same force that has lost 3 High Court cases. Was he involved. Mr Weirz will be aware that Home Office guidance has no authority, indeed the Simpson case tells us the only authority is case law and regs.

    So back to these coroner like powers that SMP’s allegedly posses. Coroners are judicial appointments, selected via the Judicial Appointments Commison, they are formally appointed by the Lord Chancellor, a judicial oath is taken, they receive judicial training and have access to the judicial portal.

    Those SMP’s and force Solicitors reading this must question the advice given. An SMP completes a statutory function not to disimilar to a Supt granting an extension in custody or an Inspector granting a search authority- a statutory function.

    Maybe Mr Weirz is due some more judicial scrutiny and criticism. I was agog when I read an SMP description of being involved in an IHR, really?

  • 2017-01-15 at 12:48 am

    Dear Hr, SMPs FMAs and heads of what ever department you maybe.

    First point to the SMPs, you are not judges you complete arrogant twats you are Doctors and that is as good as it gets for you! If Nicholas Wirz tells you that you are quasi Judges then he is a bigger twat than you, you are just doctors you muppets so stop saying you are judges.
    Hr FMAs and smps stop trying to bully IODs into releasing records that you have no right to see you will end up in the shit up to your necks and with a bit of luck you will end up in prison.
    You may think that you are clever with your threats and demands. Get it right you twats only use lawscand stated cases that are relevant.
    You must think that IODs are a walk over and you can beat us up without us defending ourselves. WRONG we know the law and caselaw, you are wrong again with the constant attempts to undermine and coerce us into doing things that we are now require to do inlat.

  • 2017-01-14 at 9:27 pm

    Jelic v CC South Yorkshire, Pattinson v Commisoner Met Police, Buchanan v Commisoner Met Police, Hinsley v CC West Mercia. So what’s the common denominator…….all disability discrimination claims against Police Forces with the Claimant officer winning as well as those sets preferred by Police Forces, 5 Essex Court, 3 Sergeants Inn.

    Chief Officers, Weirz et al and HR wouldn’t be so arrogant if it was there own money. The damage done to loyal.officers who have lost their careers through injury cannot be quantified by words.
    The Police sets get paid regardless of the outcome of the case with taxpayers money.

Comments are closed.