Under s.7 RRA 1976 it was unlawful to discriminate on race against any person who worked “for” the discriminator.
Plaintiff was employed by a company who had a stall in Harrods. Under this arrangement all stall workers had to be approved by Harrods and Plaintiff was not. As a result she was sacked by her company.
She alleged racial discrimination against Harrods.
CA accepted that she did ‘work for’ Harrods under s.7.
The point of s.7 is to give a remedy to those who would not otherwise have one, i.e. non-employees.
Here Plaintiff clearly did work ‘for’ Harrods, despite not being employed by them: she worked in their store, was subject to their rules and regulations (code of conduct, etc.), while the licensee (Plaintiff’s employer) paid money to Harrods based on how much it sold.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Labour Law | Labour Discrimination Notes (64 pages) |
Labour Law | Personal Scope Of Labour Law Notes (36 pages) |
Labour Law | The Employment Relationship Notes (71 pages) |