LEGAL PRACTICE COURSE
Employment Law
Workshop 11
Topic(s):
Discrimination (3)
Settlement agreements
Learning Outcomes:
By the end of this session you will be able to:
Identify the relevant discrimination claim(s) from a set of facts and advise on the merits
Understand and advise on the evidential issues and appropriate remedies relating to
discrimination claims
Advise on the enforceability of settlement agreements
Session Activities:
Review the pre-session attendance note and discuss the advice
Analyse the further client instructions and prepare the appropriate advice
Review a settlement agreement and advise on its enforceability
Materials Attached:
Pre-session task: memorandum attaching attendance note of meeting with Sarah
Williams
In session task: memorandum attaching further instructions from the client
In session task: memorandum regarding negotiated settlement including settlement
agreement
Materials to be Provided in session:
Settlement agreement for in-session task 2 (d2)
Marked-up settlement agreement (d3)
Preparation for Session:
Review LG 6 and 7 and paragraph 5 of LG 5
Re-read articles on Practical Law entitled ‘Discrimination in employment: overview’ and
‘Discrimination in employment: compensation and other remedies’
Read standard document on Practical Law entitled ‘Settlement agreement: employment
(short form)’ including the notes
Re-read ss. 4-6, 9-13, 19, 26, 27 and 109 EA10
Read s. 147(3) EA10
Provide answers to the pre-session task for detailed discussion in class
Post-Session:
Consolidate your learning in the session
docs_851427176.docx 1/9 © City, University of London 2019
,Pre-session Task
Memorandum
From: Supervisor
To: Trainee
Date: 1 May 2020
Client: Sarah Williams
File: SW 094793
We have received instructions from Sarah Williams, who is the daughter of one of our
existing clients. Sarah started a new job on 14 April 2020 as a Sales Executive. She is the
only woman in a small sales team at Orion Cars Ltd (‘Orion’), a prestige fleet car sales
company. Everything appeared to be going well until she attended her first team meeting
yesterday morning. The team meeting was headed by Senior Sales Executive, Mitch
Karlsen.
Mitch has a reputation for being rather brash. He opened the meeting with some extremely
derogatory and demeaning jokes about women and, as he saw it, their ignorance about cars.
He welcomed Sarah to the team and reassured her that she had been employed to make
the cars look good not for her knowledge about cars. He also talked about his wife, saying
that she was always spending his money and that was why he had to work so hard. He
went on to suggest that Sarah did not need to overwork herself as there was probably a man
somewhere taking care of her. Everyone laughed; Sarah smiled politely throughout but was
inwardly very angry.
Sarah found Mitch’s comments extremely unprofessional and offensive, and they made her
feel very uncomfortable. She went straight from the meeting to complain to the HR
Manager, Caroline Crane, who managed to persuade her against making a formal
complaint. Caroline said that Mitch was just a joker and didn’t mean any harm and that
Sarah would get used to his sense of humour in time. She also said that this was typical in a
competitive sales environment and that a certain level of resilience would be needed. Sarah
suspects that a man raising a complaint would have been taken more seriously.
Sarah is not satisfied with this and wants to know where she stands legally. She has spoken
to her family and they think she is overreacting, especially since it has only happened once
and was intended to be a joke.
Please consider whether Sarah is likely to succeed in any potential discrimination
claim(s), setting out the merits, practical issues and any remedies. Make sure you
provide relevant statutory references.
[Note to students: use the approach provided in LG 6 and 7 to structure your answer]
docs_851427176.docx 2/9 © City, University of London 2019
, 1. Is there particular discrimination claim(s)
Claim 1 – bulk of the marks would come from this claim
-Protected Characteristic= sex (s.11)
-Prohibited conduct= harassment (s.26(1) there are 3 types of claims under s.26
-s.26(1)= harassment because of sex (not looking at s.26(2) because this is sexual
harassment, so conduct of a sexual naturethere are no facts to suggest anything sexual)
Respondents?
(1) Mitch perpetrator of the harassment
(2) Orion – s.109(1) employer by virtue of this section vicarious liability for any conduct
done in the course of employment
Name the harasser + employer as employer may be able to defend themselves, in practice
employer unlikely to authorise someone to harass someone
-She made a complaint consider victimisation but need some sort of detriment nothing
in the facts shows to come about from making the complain not relevant here
-On ET1, would put down both complains, but advice to client harassment is stronger claim
Claim 2
-Direct (s.13) less favourable treatment because of a PC
Fact= Sarah suspects that a man raising a complaint would have been taken more
seriously this suggests even a real comparator or hypothetical male person bringing a
complain would be taken more seriously
-Sex (s.11)
Respondents? – would always name the perpetrator + employer
(1) Orion
2. What does the employee need to show to succeed in that claim?
For legal test, look at statute, s.26(1)
Sex harassment claim – legal test
Conduct
§ [Mitch] engaged in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic
[Sex];
Purpose/effect of conduct
§ (i) Violating [Sarah’s] dignity, or
§ (ii) Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
for [Sarah].
s.26(4): consider (a) perception of [Sarah], other circumstances and (c) reasonable for
conduct to have that effect
docs_851427176.docx 3/9 © City, University of London 2019
Employment Law
Workshop 11
Topic(s):
Discrimination (3)
Settlement agreements
Learning Outcomes:
By the end of this session you will be able to:
Identify the relevant discrimination claim(s) from a set of facts and advise on the merits
Understand and advise on the evidential issues and appropriate remedies relating to
discrimination claims
Advise on the enforceability of settlement agreements
Session Activities:
Review the pre-session attendance note and discuss the advice
Analyse the further client instructions and prepare the appropriate advice
Review a settlement agreement and advise on its enforceability
Materials Attached:
Pre-session task: memorandum attaching attendance note of meeting with Sarah
Williams
In session task: memorandum attaching further instructions from the client
In session task: memorandum regarding negotiated settlement including settlement
agreement
Materials to be Provided in session:
Settlement agreement for in-session task 2 (d2)
Marked-up settlement agreement (d3)
Preparation for Session:
Review LG 6 and 7 and paragraph 5 of LG 5
Re-read articles on Practical Law entitled ‘Discrimination in employment: overview’ and
‘Discrimination in employment: compensation and other remedies’
Read standard document on Practical Law entitled ‘Settlement agreement: employment
(short form)’ including the notes
Re-read ss. 4-6, 9-13, 19, 26, 27 and 109 EA10
Read s. 147(3) EA10
Provide answers to the pre-session task for detailed discussion in class
Post-Session:
Consolidate your learning in the session
docs_851427176.docx 1/9 © City, University of London 2019
,Pre-session Task
Memorandum
From: Supervisor
To: Trainee
Date: 1 May 2020
Client: Sarah Williams
File: SW 094793
We have received instructions from Sarah Williams, who is the daughter of one of our
existing clients. Sarah started a new job on 14 April 2020 as a Sales Executive. She is the
only woman in a small sales team at Orion Cars Ltd (‘Orion’), a prestige fleet car sales
company. Everything appeared to be going well until she attended her first team meeting
yesterday morning. The team meeting was headed by Senior Sales Executive, Mitch
Karlsen.
Mitch has a reputation for being rather brash. He opened the meeting with some extremely
derogatory and demeaning jokes about women and, as he saw it, their ignorance about cars.
He welcomed Sarah to the team and reassured her that she had been employed to make
the cars look good not for her knowledge about cars. He also talked about his wife, saying
that she was always spending his money and that was why he had to work so hard. He
went on to suggest that Sarah did not need to overwork herself as there was probably a man
somewhere taking care of her. Everyone laughed; Sarah smiled politely throughout but was
inwardly very angry.
Sarah found Mitch’s comments extremely unprofessional and offensive, and they made her
feel very uncomfortable. She went straight from the meeting to complain to the HR
Manager, Caroline Crane, who managed to persuade her against making a formal
complaint. Caroline said that Mitch was just a joker and didn’t mean any harm and that
Sarah would get used to his sense of humour in time. She also said that this was typical in a
competitive sales environment and that a certain level of resilience would be needed. Sarah
suspects that a man raising a complaint would have been taken more seriously.
Sarah is not satisfied with this and wants to know where she stands legally. She has spoken
to her family and they think she is overreacting, especially since it has only happened once
and was intended to be a joke.
Please consider whether Sarah is likely to succeed in any potential discrimination
claim(s), setting out the merits, practical issues and any remedies. Make sure you
provide relevant statutory references.
[Note to students: use the approach provided in LG 6 and 7 to structure your answer]
docs_851427176.docx 2/9 © City, University of London 2019
, 1. Is there particular discrimination claim(s)
Claim 1 – bulk of the marks would come from this claim
-Protected Characteristic= sex (s.11)
-Prohibited conduct= harassment (s.26(1) there are 3 types of claims under s.26
-s.26(1)= harassment because of sex (not looking at s.26(2) because this is sexual
harassment, so conduct of a sexual naturethere are no facts to suggest anything sexual)
Respondents?
(1) Mitch perpetrator of the harassment
(2) Orion – s.109(1) employer by virtue of this section vicarious liability for any conduct
done in the course of employment
Name the harasser + employer as employer may be able to defend themselves, in practice
employer unlikely to authorise someone to harass someone
-She made a complaint consider victimisation but need some sort of detriment nothing
in the facts shows to come about from making the complain not relevant here
-On ET1, would put down both complains, but advice to client harassment is stronger claim
Claim 2
-Direct (s.13) less favourable treatment because of a PC
Fact= Sarah suspects that a man raising a complaint would have been taken more
seriously this suggests even a real comparator or hypothetical male person bringing a
complain would be taken more seriously
-Sex (s.11)
Respondents? – would always name the perpetrator + employer
(1) Orion
2. What does the employee need to show to succeed in that claim?
For legal test, look at statute, s.26(1)
Sex harassment claim – legal test
Conduct
§ [Mitch] engaged in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic
[Sex];
Purpose/effect of conduct
§ (i) Violating [Sarah’s] dignity, or
§ (ii) Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
for [Sarah].
s.26(4): consider (a) perception of [Sarah], other circumstances and (c) reasonable for
conduct to have that effect
docs_851427176.docx 3/9 © City, University of London 2019
