There was another twist in Jordan Wimmer's £4 million constructive dismissal case against Nomos Capital founder Mark Lowe this week, as the defendant took the stand.  Lowe admitted to sending sexually explicit emails to female employees and calling Wimmer a "dumb blonde" and "decorative"; he also said he had a "marked preference" for female sales staff, which he justified as "pure commercial sense."  Wimmer also produced one email in which Lowe asked her whether an internship candidate was "cute" or "blonde."

But Lowe rejected Wimmer's claims that he'd hired escorts, who accompanied him to business meetings, and a hitman to kill her.  He also denied accusations that he made sexual advances towards Wimmer, saying he always treated her "in a gentlemanly way."

Earlier this year, an interesting case came before the Court of Appeal concerning independent contractors and sham contracts.  Miklos Szilagyi sued a company called Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd (PF).

PF specialises in the renovation of external walls and Szilagyi had worked for the company as an installer.  After a short period of training, he was told to find an assistant to work with him.  He was then asked to sign two documents: the first document was a 'partnership agreement' between Szilagyi and his assistant; the second was a services agreement between the 'partnership' and PF.

So far so good, except:

A judge in Hong Kong has awarded 18 former Cathay Pacific pilots $7.6m in damages for unfair dismissal - eight years after they were dismissed.

The BBC reports the pilots were sacked after they started a 'work-to-rule campaign' during a labour dispute.  They belonged to a group of 49 pilots, known as the 49ers, all of whom were fired.  (NB. The other 31 pilots also sued, but settled with the company.)

The labour dispute centred on the pilots' claims that they were often made to fly longer than agreed hours, with insufficient break time between flights.

At the time they were dismissed, Cathay said it was because of "frequent sick days" and "a negative attitude towards management."

But Judge Ansemolo Reyes said that "the predominant reason for the plaintiffs' termination by Cathay was their perceived participation in union activities."  The judge added: "By dismissing them, Cathay hoped to send a strong signal to other union members to comply with management's line or else face a similar fate as the 49ers."

He also ruled that the pilots were defamed by the company's statements.

A man who worked as a project manager at construction firm Balfour Beatty has been given the go ahead to sue his former employer for unfair dismissal.

Alan Dransfield, 59, was employed by the company for over four years and raised concerns over health and safety in November 2008.  Two months after blowing the whistle, he was told the company wanted to make him redundant. 

Mr. Dransfield appealed the decision and was put on leave for five months.  His appeal was ultimately dismissed, however, and he became officially redundant in June 2009.

Mr. Dransfield has now launched a claim for unfair dismissal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  At a case management meeting on 27 October, a judge gave him permission to pursue a claim worth up to £300,000, which reflects his anticipated loss of earnings.

A spokesperson for Balfour Beatty commented: "Balfour Beatty takes whistleblowing cases very seriously and investigates each one following the processes we have in place."

Former Nomus Capital executive Jordan Wimmer, who is suing ex-boss Mark Lowe for sex discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, unfair constructive dismissal, and disability discrimination, has claimed he hired a Russian hitman to kill her.

Ms. Wimmer has already claimed she was forced to watch father-of-two Lowe have a lap dance at a Burlesque nightclub in Paris and that he invited a young Thai escort wearing "hot pants and stilettos" to a business meeting.

A High Court judge has reopened the Baby P judicial review case brought by Sharon Shoesmith after the late disclosure of potentially significant evidence by Ofted.

The original hearing of Shoesmith's judicial review application against Haringey Council, Ed Balls, and Ofsted ended last month.

Jordan Wimmer, 29, of Chelsea, west London, says her boss Mark Lowe, founder and owner of Nomos Capital, branded her a "bimbo" and "stupid blonde," and forced her to quit her £500,000-a-year job as a marketing executive.  The Canadian is now suing Lowe for £4 million, claiming sex discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, unfair constructive dismissal, and disability discrimination.

Wimmer claims was forced to watch father-of-two Lowe have a lap dance at a burlesque club in Paris "under great duress."  She also alleges he invited a young Thai escort to business meetings: "In spite of everyone else wearing formal business attire, [the escort] wore hot pants which barely covered her buttocks, stilettos, and no stockings."

Over the past four months, we've taken a look at a number of different laws in the workplace. 

We began with unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal and redundancy.

After that, we looked at retirement and age discrimination - including the default retirement age.

Next, we discussed sexual discrimination (including the gender pay gap); racial discrimination; disability discrimination; and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, religion, and philosophical belief.

We then considered working hour rules and rest period requirements; workplace health and safety; the right to paid holidays; and national minimum wage law.  We also discussed pregnancy, maternity, and paternity rights.

After this, we looked at the significance of work status and rights for agency workers.

From here, we analysed employee misconduct, whistleblowing, and bullying and workplace harassment.

We next looked at severance pay and employment contracts.

Tim Nicholson claims he was made redundant because of his belief in climate change, which he alleges put him at odds with senior executives at former employer Grainger plc.

In March, an employment law judge ruled he could invoke legal protection against discrimination and claim unfair dismissal, since philosophical beliefs are protected alongside religious beliefs.

Grainger appealed the decision on the grounds that belief in climate change is "political" and a "lifestyle choice," which should not be compared to religion or philosophy.

This week, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) rejected Grainger's appeal and found that a belief that carbon emissions must be cut to avoid catastrophic climate change was capable of amounting to a philosophical belief. 

In reaching its decision, the EAT held that, unlike the position pertaining to religious beliefs, Mr. Nicholson would probably need to be cross-examined on his belief in order to establish it.

The EAT also enunciated a new five-prong test to determine whether a philosophical belief is worthy of protection:

Colin Woods, a delivery driver for Liverpool-based Home Delivery Network (HDN), lost his job last December after he was spotted peeing on his work van.  He took HDN to an employment tribunal claiming he was unfairly dismissed.

Mr. Woods admitted urinating against the van, but said he did it in an "emergency."  He also claimed there had been three similar incidents in the past involving other employees who had not been sacked.

Dismissal or victimisation for blowing the whistle

If someone is dismissed or victimised after blowing the whistle, the level of protection they receive depends on whether they qualify as an employee or worker.

Employees

If an employee is dismissed for whistleblowing, they can claim automatic unfair dismissal - even if they don't have one year's service 

• Normally, under the Employment Rights Act, only employees who have a year's continuity of service at the date of dismissal, or who have been dismissed without notice and are within a week of gaining a year's continuity of service, can make a claim.
  
  
• Note also that in this context the word dismissal includes constructive dismissal.

If an employee is victimised or treated worse after blowing the whistle they can also bring a claim for 'detrimental treatment' (see below).

Ruth Matthews, 60, former head of support services at Inverness Leisure complex, has brought a claim for unfair constructive dismissal against her former employer, alleging she was forced to quit after two years of being "victimised" and "manipulated."

It would seem her relationship with the general manager at the complex, James Martin, lies at the heart of the dispute.  This first became strained in 2007 after he blamed her for an administrative error.

Mr. Martin alleges the incident prompted Ms. Matthews to compile a "black box" against him.  During the hearing, she made a series of allegations, including overstaffing, bullying, cronyism, and favouritism; she also claimed one employee took 27 cigarette breaks in a single shift, which seriously endangered health & safety.

Under the Disability Discrimination Act ('DDA'), it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against disabled people for a reason related to their disability.

Employers must also make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled people are not put at a substantial disadvantage by employment arrangements.

The law applies to all areas of employment, including: recruitment; employment terms and conditions; pay; work-related benefits (e.g., access to recreation or refreshment facilities); work status; training; promotion and transfer opportunities; redundancy; and dismissal.

Disability Dismissal

This summer, the Employment Appeals Tribunal ('EAT') considered the case of lecturer Susan Walters who was dismissed by Fareham College for long-term sickness absence.

Ms. Walters went on sick leave beginning in February 2006.  She gave a number of reasons for her absence, including stress-related illness, sinusitis, investigation for liver masses, HT and "gynae problems."

Generally, your job must disappear for you to be made redundant, but it can also happen if someone else's job disappears and they are moved into your job, making you redundant. 

This is known as redundancy bumping (a.k.a. transferred redundancy), which often happens when a more senior employee is prepared to take a more junior role to avoid redundancy. 

Redundancy bumping rules became a hot topic for employers this year, as the recession hit and they looked at different ways to cut costs and shed staff.

Bumping-related legal issues fall into two categories:

1. Unfair bumping redundancy; &
   
   
2. Unfair dismissal without considering bumping.

The Baby P judicial review hearing launched by Sharon Shoesmith is scheduled to end today.

Haringey Council sacked Shoesmith as director of children's services in December 2008, shortly after Ed Balls - Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families - ordered her suspension following the release of an Ofsted report into the Baby P case.

Announcing Shoesmith's suspension, Balls said:

"I have powers to intervene and remove someone who is not fit for office ... Most people would look at this report - look at the clear evidence of management failures - and say that this kind of failure should not be rewarded." 

The Ofsted report was, he said, "devastating and damning."

In March, however, Shoesmith applied for judicial review against Haringey Council, Balls, and Ofsted.  She also launched an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal.

Heather Brown, an Ofsted inspector, has described Haringey's children's services department as the "worst ever seen." 

But Shoesmith claims the Government turned her into a scapegoat; that she's a victim of a "flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice."

She accuses Balls of suspending her without a fair hearing.  She also complains he didn't give her a chance to see the Ofsted report or respond to "a number of highly prejudicial comments made by Ofsted inspectors" before dismissing her.