Dunn v The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management [2011] UKEAT/0531/10/DA
The Claimant in this case argued that she had suffered less
favourable treatment not because of her status as a married person
per se, but because of the identity and characteristics of her
husband who was employed by the same employer and was in dispute
with them.
The EAT held that the legislation not only protects married persons
from less favourable treatment because of their married status, but
also from less favourable treatment because of their being married
to a particular person. The EAT focussed on the specific
relationship between the Claimant and her husband and the reasons
for the Claimant's less favourable treatment (as opposed to
looking more generally at whether the reason for the treatment was
her status as a married person).
Implications
The decision of the EAT in this case will come as a surprise to
many. In terms of possible reasons for discriminatory treatment, a
clear distinction can be drawn between treatment that is due to the
characteristics of a person to whom the Claimant was married, and
treatment due to the fact that the Claimant is married.
The difficulties of the decision are highlighted further when the
question is asked, would the same treatment have been afforded to
the Claimant had she been in a relationship other than marriage (or
civil partnership) with her partner? Based on the facts of this
case the answer appears to be yes.
Subject to a decision of a higher court overturning it, this
judgment of the EAT can be seen as widening the scope of
discrimination protection for married persons. This could be
problematic for employers (for example, those who intend to
terminate an employee's employment due to the risk of
confidential information or trade secrets being passed to their
husband or wife).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
