Smith v Gardner Merchant

Last updated

Smith v Gardner Merchant
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Decided14 July 1998
Citation(s)[1998] IRLR 510, [1999] ICR 134, [1998] 3 All ER 852, [1998] EWCA Civ 1207
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingBeldam LJ, Ward LJ and Sir Christopher Slade

Smith v Gardner Merchant [1998] IRLR 510 is a UK labour law case, concerning the possibility of claiming compensation for discrimination under the gender statutes. It took place before the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 were introduced.

Contents

Facts

Paul Smith worked as a barman for the Coliseum and then the Globe Theatre. Gardner Merchant were contracted to provide catering at a large number of London theatres and employed 52,000 in the UK. At the latter theatre, a homophobic (not proven) colleague called Barbara Touhy harassed him, saying he had diseases and should be put on an island. She hit him in the back one night (not proven). He complained, and the employer took her version that he was being aggressive towards her and found he had started a fight in front of theatre goers. Smith's colleagues, many of whom were gay told the Company that Smith flaunted his sexuality and said he was unpopular. He was dismissed for gross misconduct after a lengthy investigation and an appeal to a Director. He alleged discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, saying that a comparator ought to be a homosexual woman, and that he was therefore less favourably treated on grounds of his sex. This issue had never been raised with the Company at his dismissal hearings. He sought financial support from a Gay Rights group who wanted to challenge that the Sex Discrimination Act did not cover Sexual Orientation. They firstly asked for £20,000 to settle. (Smith had less than 24 months service so the only route to a Tribunal was to allege discrimination as that had no minimum service requirement). John Stacey, (https://contactout.com/John-Stacey-9924843) who at the time was Group Human Resources Director, took the view that because of the number of gay employees particularly in the theatres, The Company could not settle as it would be seen as an admission that it had discriminated on sexuality and declined to settle. The merits of the case were not heard as both the Tribunal and the EAT found against him on points of application of discrimination law because they held it was sexuality discrimination, not gender discrimination that he suffered. Smith appealed and the case was heading to the European Court of Justice but had to seek leave from the Court of Appeal. Stacey prepared the Company for such a fight and the legal costs had already exceeded the settlement offer. Just before the Court of Appeal hearing, the Grant v South West Trains case was dismissed by the ECJ so the Court of Appeal, using that clear judgement, referred the Smith case back to an Employment Tribunal to be heard on its merits. On the day of the Tribunal hearing, neither Smith nor his representatives appeared and the case was dismissed. [1]

Judgment

Ward LJ held that the tribunals had failed to ask themselves whether a homosexual woman would not have been less favourably treated. That was the correct question, which they would have to try to do again. The suggestion was, that Barbara would not have been malicious and violent towards a gay woman, and therefore there probably was discrimination.

See also

Notes

  1. "Smith v Gardner Merchant Ltd | [1999] ICR 134 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine". www.casemine.com. Retrieved 12 June 2021.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian Institute</span>

The Christian Institute (CI) is a charity operating in the United Kingdom, promoting a Christian viewpoint, founded on a belief in Biblical inerrancy. The CI is a registered charity. The group does not report numbers of staff, volunteers or members with only the Director, Colin Hart, listed as a representative. However, according to the accounts and trustees annual report for the financial year ending 2017, the average head count of employees during the year was 48 (2016:46).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the United Kingdom</span>

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have varied over time.

<i>Canada (AG) v Mossop</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. The case is also significant as one of Justice L'Heureux-Dube's most famous dissents where she proposes an evolving model of the "family".

Sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or sexual behaviour.

The Employment Equality Regulations 2003 were secondary legislation in the United Kingdom, which prohibited employers unreasonably discriminating against employees on grounds of sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation, religion or belief and age.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Botswana</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Botswana face legal issues not experienced by non-LGBT citizens. Both female and male same-sex sexual acts have been legal in Botswana since 11 June 2019 after a unanimous ruling by the High Court of Botswana. Despite an appeal by the government, the ruling was upheld by the Botswana Court of Appeal on 29 November 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Trinidad and Tobago</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Trinidad and Tobago face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same rights and benefits as that of opposite-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Peru</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Peru face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity among consenting adults is legal. However, households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex couples.

Coleman v Attridge Law (2008) C-303/06 is an employment law case heard by the European Court of Justice. The question is whether the European Union's discrimination policy covers not just people who are disabled but people who suffer discrimination because they are related or connected to disabled people. At the beginning of 2008, Advocate General Maduro delivered his opinion, supporting an inclusive approach. He said discrimination law is there to combat all forms of discrimination, including those connected to protected groups of people.

English v Sanderson Blinds Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1421 is a UK labour law case on the question of whether a person can claim discrimination for sexuality without being actually gay. The Court of Appeal decided that it was irrelevant whether someone was gay or not or the bullies believe the person is gay or not, if the harassment has sexuality as its focus.

<i>Pearce v Mayfield Secondary School Governing Body</i>

Pearce v Mayfield Secondary School Governing Body and Advocate General for Scotland v MacDonald [2003] UKHL 34; [2003] IRLR 512 is a UK labour law case concerning sexuality and sex discrimination. It was decided before the new Employment Equality Regulations 2003.

Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom (2000) 29 ECHR 548 is a UK labour law and European Convention on Human Rights case on sexual orientation discrimination. The European Court of Human Rights combined judgments for Beckett, Grady, Lustig-Prean and Smith are regarded as pivotal in gay rights throughout the UK and Europe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Bermuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT persons. Homosexuality is legal in Bermuda, but the territory has long held a reputation for being homophobic and intolerant. Since 2013, the Human Rights Act has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) persons in Hong Kong, may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Belize</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Belize face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT citizens, although attitudes have been changing in recent years. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Belize in 2016, when the Supreme Court declared Belize's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Belize's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which Belizean courts have interpreted to include sexual orientation.

Smith and Grady v UK (1999) 29 EHRR 493 was a notable decision of the European Court of Human Rights that unanimously found that the investigation into and subsequent discharge of personnel from the Royal Navy on the basis they were homosexual was a breach of their right to a private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision, which caused widespread controversy at the time led the UK to adopt a revised sexual-orientation-free Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct in January 2000. In UK law the decision is notable because the applicants' case had previously been dismissed in both the High Court and Court of Appeal, who had found that the authorities' actions had not violated the principles of legality including Wednesbury unreasonableness, thus highlighting the difference in approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the domestic courts.

<i>McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd</i> 2010 UK court case

McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd[2010] EWCA Civ 880; [2010] IRLR 872; 29 BHRC 249 was an application in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that a relationship counsellor dismissed for refusing to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs did not suffer discrimination under the Employment Equality Regulations 2003. The application was heard by Lord Justice Laws, who issued his decision on 29 April 2010 refusing the application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Arizona</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Arizona may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Arizona, and same-sex couples are able to marry and adopt. Nevertheless, the state provides only limited protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Several cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have enacted ordinances to protect LGBT people from unfair discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

<i>Ladele v London Borough of Islington</i> United Kingdom labour law case

Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 is a UK labour law case concerning discrimination against same sex couples by a religious person in a public office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeremy Pemberton (priest)</span> Anglican priest

Jeremy Charles Baring Pemberton is a British Anglican priest who was the first priest in the Church of England to enter into a same-sex marriage when he married another man in 2014. As same-sex marriages are not accepted by the church, he was denied a job as a chaplain for the National Health Service by John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. Before then, he had been an Anglican priest for 33 years.