In the latest episode of our 'Having a NatteRR' podcast, David and I discuss the case of Cooper v (1) Sainsbury’s and (2) Hourihan.

This case considered (amongst other things) a complaint under s.26 and s.15 EqA 2010 about the second Respondent failing to include the Claimant on an ‘International Men’s Day’ post sent to all internal colleagues and published on LinkedIn.

We look at the facts, the judgment, and what employers can learn from this case. 

In this episode's banter section, we just list the things we are doing over the next few days, which may or may not be of interest. 

We look at the case of Pilawa v Spericle Ltd T/a Properties on The Market, in which an employee who was rendered bedbound by endometriosis, was awarded more than £31k for unfair dismissal.

We also talk about David's camping trip, which included playing a Swedish game called 'kubb' and the time I shouted at some youths. 

In the latest episode of  the non-award winning 'Having a NatteRR', Simon and David examine the case of Taneja v Phoenix Whirlpools Limited, which included an allegation that the Claimant being called the incorrect name on four occasions was an act of harassment and/or direct race discrimination.

They also discuss whose weekend plans are best, with camping vs sleeping in a house, along with a teaser for the next episode: a fascinating explanation of initialism vs acronym.

In this episode, we discuss the case of Legge v the Environment Agency, in which the Claimant who had argued he had been sacked for not being a feminist, was ordered to pay £20k costs for bringing a vexatious claim. 

We also discuss Dave's hurty knee, my hurty shoulder and fights between people over sitting and standing at events. 

In this episode, David and I discuss the case of  Wright Turner v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham​, which included a claim of direct disability discrimination. 

We also talk about our upcoming trip to Chorley and how I was inconvenienced by the amount of 'looking' I had to do at a recent visit to Harry Potter Studios. 

In this episode, Simon and David discuss the case of McLaren V Hiflow Property Services, a pregnancy discrimination case in which the Claimant won and received a £22k reward.

They look at what respondent did wrong in terms of case preparation, talk through the judgment and look at the lessons all employers can learn from this.

It also includes the ever-popular ‘banter bit’ in which Dave discusses the unhygienic state of his son’s flat in Edinburgh, and Simon reveals how to steal chocolate from your children.

In this week’s episode of Having a NatteRR, David and Simon discuss the case of In Richardson v West Midlands Trains Ltd, in which the Claimant won his claim of unfair dismissal after being sacked for played two pranks, involving placing, firstly, a tarantula’s shed exoskeleton, and, subsequently, a snakeskin in a colleague’s pigeonhole.

The  Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the Claimant £22,571.22, representing his loss of earnings until 6 July 2023, plus £704.99 per week from 7 July 2023 until reinstatement.

The boys discuss where the Respondent went wrong.

In addition, the “banter section” hits a new low.

In the second episode of this series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a Natter podcast, David and Simon discuss the case of Ms Lad v Lily Head Dental Practice. The Claimant in this case was removed from a work whatsapp group whilst on maternity leave and brought a claim for maternity leave discrimination. There were other aspects to the case, but that is the aspect they focus on; there are lessons to be learned for employers with employees absent on maternity leave, when it is necessary to put in place measures to ensure those employees are included in events and announcements.

They also discuss the trauma Simon anticipates suffering as a result of David not being able to accompany him for the usual evening curry whilst they are away delivering training., and the business plan for the “bus tour of injustice”.

In this episode, the first of a new series of Robinson Ralph’s Having a NatteRR podcast, Simon and David discuss the case of Muir v AstraZeneca, where the employee was dismissed in December 2020 for misconduct relating to bullying and harassment. The Tribunal criticised the employer for failing to have due regard to Mr Muir’s mental health disability, which had impacted on his behaviour. The tribunal found that Mr Muir’s line manager and other relevant managers were aware of his disability and they could have taken steps to support him, rather than dismiss him.

They also discuss how few or many people probably listen to the podcast; the “banter” section of course being the best reason to listen to the podcast and tell everyone else about it!

This week, Simon and David discuss the case of P v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd.

It's a truly awful case of sexual harassment and vicarious liability relating to a manager's behaviour both during and after a works organised party.

David and Simon raise the importance of both reminding employees that they are still subject to codes of conduct at work dos and also the requirement to challenge bad behaviour immediately.