30/10/2007
In the case of Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd the EAT allowed the appellant's appeal in part and remitted the issue of victimisation to the ET. The EAT however dismissed the argument relating to indirect discrimination.
Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd (UKEAT/0134/07/DM)
The EAT found that the ET had not erred in finding that there was no indirect discrimination by the Respondent against the Claimant, who was a Rastafarian. The parties accepted that Rastafarian beliefs constituted a philosophical belief, which was similar to a religious belief and therefore fell within the scope of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. However the EAT considered there was insufficient evidence that the Respondent did in fact object to the Claimant's dreadlocks.
The case has also been covered in the Times Online “Watercooler” :
'...Among the erudite conclusions reached was this one: “It may be that all dreadlocked hair is matted, but it does not follow that all matted hair is dreadlocked.” '
> for full story see second item in the following link: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2679985.ece
> Judgment http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/Upload/07_0134fhRCDM.doc
Mr Harris was represented by
Melanie Plimmer
, instructed by Kirklees Law Centre.