Search for: "State v. Grainger"
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2024, 2:52 am
Background In Dr David Miller v University of Bristol [2024] ET 1400780/2022, the claimant was appointed Professor of Political Sociology at the University from 1 September 2018. [read post]
7 Oct 2023, 11:58 pm
Race, feminism and the Grainger criteria At a preliminary hearing in Mr S Corby v Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service [2023] ET 1805305/2022, Mr Corby claimed that he held philosophical beliefs that challenged critical theory in general and a belief in the importance of character over race. [read post]
1 Jul 2023, 11:27 pm
The Parliament website now states that the Bill has been withdrawn. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 5:24 am
The question for the Tribunal was whether Ms Owen had produced sufficient evidence that she held her belief in ethical veganism to the extent required by the Grainger guidelines. [read post]
22 May 2023, 12:13 am
The judgment As to the Grainger tests: there was no express challenge to the genuineness of Mr Cave’s stated belief; it was more than merely an opinion: “The claimant is articulate about his beliefs, has done some reading and displays relatively well-expressed views about it. [read post]
29 Jan 2023, 4:40 am
Quick links Employment Writes: Grainger v The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: “Is it right that that person should be deprived of a remedy because their non-theism is wrapped up in a cloak of spaghetti? [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 5:14 am
In Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4, Burton J had set out the constituent elements of a “protected belief” under section 10 at [24]: the belief must be honestly held, it must be a belief as distinct from an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available, it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and must… [read post]
24 Jul 2022, 11:15 pm
At a preliminary hearing to determine whether her belief was protected by s.10 Equality Act 2010, the initial Employment Tribunal held that her belief was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and, therefore, failed the fifth criterion established in Grainger plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219 09 0311. [read post]
25 May 2022, 8:16 am
One of the most difficult issues in determining whether a view on copyright is protected under the Equality Act is whether it meets the second Grainger criterion, in that it is a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 1:05 am
: off-topic, but an interesting take on Grainger v Nicholson. [read post]
30 Jan 2022, 1:45 pm
The United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit in Holly v. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 4:11 pm
Dunkin’ Donuts IHOP Bridgestone DuPont IKEA Buffalo Wild Wings Duracell ln-N-Out Burger Campbell’s Soup Eddie V’s International Paper Carl’s Jr. [read post]
17 Mar 2018, 5:47 am
There could be no action under the Equalities Act 2010 since, although ‘belief’ is a protected characteristic, discrimination against an objectionable political belief does not count (see Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360, [28]). [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 4:51 am
[v] See, e.g., People v. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 1:47 pm
Kenneth Boyd, Grainger's loss-prevention specialist, discovered that the order was placed from Grainger's website. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 12:06 pm
There are two cases which make up the primary law on the issue: Davis v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 7:06 pm
Blommer v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 12:47 pm
See United States v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 3:49 pm
Steele v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 8:18 am
The federal discrimination laws, and the parallel state anti-discrimination statutes, prohibit discrimination. [read post]
