• 0
    15 November 2016
    Updates

    Discrimination by Inference

    Summary Discrimination by Inference. Nadia Otshudi worked for Base Childrenswear Limited from 16 February 2016 up until she was dismissed on 19 May 2016. Her former employer, Mr Granditer had told her that she was being dismissed for redundancy. Nadia stated that she did not believe the redundancy reason was true and claimed she was a victim of discrimination. Mr Granditer claimed he was so upset and disappointed by this allegation that he dared her to repeat the statement. She was told to collect her belongings and leave. Nadia lodged a grievance five days later, claiming her dismissal was discriminatory. Mr Granditer chose to ignore the grievance. Nadia lodged her claim to the tribunal and Mr Granditer lodged his defence claiming the redundancy was made “purely for financial/economic reasons.” The claim was out of time, however the tribunal allowed an extension for 1 alleged incident of racial harassment. About 15 months later in August 2017, roughly three weeks before the hearing, solicitors instructed by Mr Granditer amended his defence to grounds of resistance. A new explanation had been presented. Mr Granditer claimed that two of his staff members believed they saw Nadia attempting theft of clothes whilst working. There was no investigation and Mr Granditer dismissed Nadia by using redundancy to minimise the potential confrontation. The tribunal found in favour of Nadia and she was awarded £27,505.29. Facts of the case Mr Granditer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 31 August 2018 but HH Judge Stacey dismissed this. Mr Granditer now appeals in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division.) The issue here is to decide whether the decision of the Employment Tribunal was legally flawed. Was it unreasonable for the court to draw an inference that the dismissal was racially-motivated? The tribunal took into account that Mr Granditer had no background of treating Nadia unfairly. Nadia also requested to work separately and Mr Granditer had given her permission to do so. It was even agreed that Nadia was a talented photographer. The difficulty was trying to determine whether there was any link between Nadia’s race and her dismissal. Ratio Decidendi With all facts considered, it was held that it was appropriate to draw the inference that there was a racial element to the dismissal. This is because there were too many concerns within Mr Granditer’s argument. Mr Granditer only mentioned the suspected theft 3 weeks before the hearing. The false explanation to avoid confrontation ceased to be operative once court proceedings began. He dared Nadia to repeat her allegation of discrimination, which was earlier described as an attempt to intimidate Nadia. No investigation was carried out and there was little evidence to prove an attempted theft. Mr Granditer also chose to ignore the grievance. Mr Granditer failed to prove that the protected characteristic had no link to the dismissal, so it could be inferred that Mr Granditer had reached his conclusion that attempted theft had taken place due to Nadia’s race. The appeal was dismissed and the tribunal’s decision was upheld. Contact Information If discrimination by inference is something that you need help with, Frantz Gregory & Co can support you in bringing […]

    Continue reading
  • 0
    15 November 2016
    Updates

    Demistifying Asylum Seekers

    Unfortunately the media in Britain plays a significant role in corrupting the minds of well meaning citizens of our community and causing a lot of anxiety amongst asylum seekers in the UK. Everyone who comes to Britain to live and work has a story to tell. The story of an asylum seeker is always that of fear. Many of them flee their country by any and all means possible because of fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or possession of a certain political stance – essentially for who they are. Where has our compassion gone? We hear a lot about how asylum seekers are taking our jobs, taking advantage of our benefit system, being given priority over social housing and so on. If there is any truth in these, it would be because of a failure in government policies and not because of immigration. However, these are myths being portrayed as truth. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding about immigration and asylum and sadly the media isn’t helping particularly in the run up to the General Election. It is worth taking a moment to dispel some of the entrenched myths I have come across in my five years of Immigration and Asylum Practice. But first I need to make a distinction between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an illegal immigrant. In the UK when a person makes an application for asylum they are referred to as an asylum seeker. However, if their application is successful they are granted refugee status and are referred to as a refugee. A refugee is granted a five year leave to remain in the UK without any condition The Home Office can at any time before the end of the five year period revoke a refugee status and if not, Indefinite Leave to Remain (indefinite visa) would be granted. A person is an illegal immigrant if they enter the UK without a visa and have not made themselves known to the authorities, or where they have overstayed, or failed to comply with the conditions of their visa without a reasonable excuse. Myths and Facts Myth – Asylum seekers take our jobs. This is not true. Fact – Asylum seekers are not normally allowed to work. However, they can apply for permission to work only in occupations with a shortage of suitable candidates and they must meet certain strict conditions. Myth – Asylum seekers take our benefits. This is not true. Fact – Asylum seekers do not have access to mainstream benefits. However, those who are at risk of homelessness and destitution may be able to apply for housing and money through asylum support previously known as National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and not through the local authorities. Asylum support is means tested with very strict terms and ceases when an asylum claim is finally decided. Myth – Asylum seekers are draining our economy. This is not true. Fact – There is no single profile of an asylum seeker. They come from all works of life in their country of origin. They may be highly skilled professionals fleeing their country […]

    Continue reading
  • 0
    28 July 2016
    Updates

    Nigel Farage’s Top 10 Immigration Gaffes!

    Gaffe #1 – Introduce an Australian-style points based system to manage the number and skills of people coming into the country. Fact – A British-style points based system already exists within the Immigration Rules. It was introduced in 2008 and subsequently amended in 2012 to include stricter criteria where for example applicants are required to show that their intentions are genuine. The amendment had a significant effect in some of the migration routes into the UK and reduces the abuse of immigration control. The British-style point based system is notoriously tough. There is currently no right of appeal for those who have been refused a visa under the system save for those refused an extension and in very specific circumstances. Gaffe #2 – Refuse entry to those with HIV and life-threatening diseases. Fact – The Immigration Rules allow for situations where an applicant can or sometimes must be refused entry into the UK if one of the general grounds for refusal applies. Applicants with life-threatening diseases will be refused entry if there is confirmation from the Medical Inspector that, for medical reasons, it is desirable to refuse entry. Gaffe #3 – Work visas should be issued to skilled and key workers under an Australian-style points based system. Fact – Work visas are already issued to skilled and key workers under a British-style points based system. The system is designed to manage the number and skills of people coming into the UK for students and some workers. Gaffe #4 – Those arriving on work visas will not be granted permanent leave to remain however they can apply for British citizenship. Fact – Under the Immigration Rules, permanent leave to remain is a step to naturalising as a British citizen. Breaking this link would mean that extra requirements to ensure that an applicant meets the criteria are removed. Some have argued that this extra requirement is redundant while others have argued that removing this extra requirement makes the British Nationality law a soft touch. Gaffe #5 – Students not attending courses in the UK will have their visas withdrawn and the colleges not reporting absenteeism will be barred from accepting international students. Fact – Educational institutions recruiting students from outside the EEA need a Home Office sponsor licence and they must apply for Highly Trusted Sponsor status. There are existing obligations on all educational providers wishing to retain their sponsorship licence to comply with strict licence requirements. The Home Office can and will suspend or revoke an institution’s status or licence if, for example, it fails to report any unauthorised absence. Gaffe #6 – It is important that British citizens and those with permanent leave to remain in the UK can form legal family relationships with non-British citizens. So we will abolish EEA family permit schemes. Fact – The very purpose of the EEA family permit is to enable all EEA nationals and British citizens exercising treaty rights and their family members to form and maintain a legal family relationship in the UK. EEA nationals and their family members automatically acquire permanent rights of residence in the UK after 5 years and they may wish to apply for a document certifying this for the sake of convenience. The idea […]

    Continue reading
  • 0
    9 July 2016
    Updates

    Right to Rent in the United Kingdom

    What does the new law on right to rent mean for landlords? landlords What does the new law on right to rent mean for landlords? The Immigration Act 2014 introduced a new legal requirement on private landlords in England to carry out immigration checks on all new prospective tenants from February 2016. The new law applies to residential agreements including tenancies, leases of less than 7 years, licences and sub-tenancies or sub-leases. British citizens, EEA nationals and Swiss nationals are all relevant nationals that can rent  accommodation BUT must  show evidence that they are relevant nationals. Anyone who is not a relevant national BUT has been granted a visa to enter or remain in the UK has a right to rent accommodation. What does this mean for landlords? It is important that landlords carry out checks on all the adults over the age of 18 who will be living in their properties and take steps to ensure that all adult tenants will live in their property as their only or main home.The right to rent obligation only apply to new tenancies from 1st February 2016. The 3 golden rules are (a) Obtain original documents from the tenant showing they have the right to rent. (b) Check that the documents are valid with the tenant present and  (c) make Copies of the original documents and record the date you made the checks. Landlords should be aware that: There are monetary penalties of up to £3,000 for non-compliance based upon each illegal migrant being housed. Enforcement measures are now active. This means that if they are found to be in breach, they are automatically considered as committed an offence on notice from the Home Office. They can be sentence to up to 5 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. They are obligated to keep track of their tenant’s leave to remain. They can pass their obligation to carry out right to rent to an agent but this must be done in a written agreement clearly stating that the agent takes full legal responsibility for carrying out the checks and any penalty. There is a legal responsibility to meet tenants face to face or via a medium such as Skype. What does this mean for tenants: Tenants may find that their landlord can terminate their tenancy agreement by: Mutual agreement. Serving notice upon the tenant in accordance with usual procedure for that tenancy. Following eviction routes for disqualified people in England. Tenants may also find that if they are caught, they will be arrested and  would likely be removed/deported from the UK. Who has the Right to Rent? Those who are subject to pre- entry control, more commonly known as a visa with leave to enter incorporated. Those with permission to enter into the UK granted to non-visa nationals visiting the UK. Those with leave to remain in the UK usually granted in-country to those with existing leave. Those with a time limited leave (to enter or remain), granted for a certain period with a specified expiry date. Those with unlimited leave that has no expiry date but can be lost if conditions are not met. If you would like advice on how the Act might affect you, […]

    Continue reading