Directors personally liable for discrimination compensation

-

The EAT has recently ruled that two directors were personally liable to pay compensation for discrimination.

They were found to be jointly and severally liable, together with the employer, to pay compensation and aggravated damages for discrimination. As the employer went into liquidation after the compensation was awarded, the directors were left liable for the full amount.

The case of Bungay and Paul v Chandel and others concerned a claim under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (now repealed but provided for under the Equality Act 2010)

Under the Regulations an employer could be vicariously liable for discriminatory acts by its employees unless it could show that it had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

An employment tribunal found that two directors, Mr Bungay and Mr Paul, were the main individuals involved in the discrimination which led to the dismissal of the two employees, Mr Chandel and Mr Saini.

Following the dismissals it was alleged that the two directors had made malicious complaints to the police which resulted in Mr Chandel and Mr Saini being arrested

The tribunal awarded a total of £37,000 in compensation for direct discrimination, injury to feelings and aggravated damages, ruling that the employer, Mr Bungay and Mr Paul were jointly and severally liable.

The employer then went into compulsory liquidation and Mr Bungay and Mr Paul appealed but it was dismissed. The EAT dismissed the argument that Mr Bungay and Mr Paul were not agents of the company. It said they had the power to manage the business of the company and the discriminatory behaviour was carried out in the course of the company’s business.

The EAT also dismissed Mr Bungay and Mr Paul’s claim that other directors should also be jointly and severally liable on a pro rata basis. It found that the two directors were the “prime movers” in the discriminatory acts and that they had been instrumental in Mr Chandel and Mr Saini being arrested.

In addition, the EAT found that post-employment behaviour could be taken into account when awarding aggravated damages.

Latest news

Transgender staff excluded from single-sex toilets under new equality guidance

Transgender people must be excluded from single-sex toilets and changing rooms that correspond with their lived gender under updated...

Simon Coker: Closing the emotional gap – why AI in the workplace is as much a human challenge as a technological one

AI adoption is transforming how work gets done across every sector. But its deeper impact is less visible: it is reshaping how people feel about their work.

Employment tribunal delays stretch towards 2030 as lawyers warn system is nearing collapse

Employment tribunal hearings are being delayed for years as lawyers warn mounting backlogs are undermining workplace justice.

Keeping culture and purpose at the centre of a growing fintech

A fintech people leader explains how culture, wellbeing and purpose are being protected during rapid business growth.
- Advertisement -

Migrant worker with no right to work in UK wins discrimination case against employer

An employment tribunal has ruled that a migrant worker without the legal right to work in Britain can still pursue successful discrimination claims.

Government to replace some GP sick notes with return-to-work plans

Workers in four English regions will be directed towards personalised health and employment support as ministers test alternatives to GP-issued fit notes.

Must read

Dr Emma Waltham: How are companies acting on the gender pay gap?

Dr Emma Waltham explores the ways in which companies are acting on the gender pay gap, and outlines what more is needed to be urgently done.

Running on a skeleton staff this summer?

In order to avoid the negative impacts of an understaffed office on employee morale and a business’ bottom line, it is essential for employers to always maintain sufficient staffing levels, while also considering how to keep workers happy and motivated over the summer months.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you