Katherine Anderson analyses AECOM Limited v Mallon  EAT 104, a case in which the EAT provides a useful review of the authorities on what reasonable enquiries an employer should make of a disabled job applicant.
Employment and discrimination
Katherine is an experienced employment law specialist who has acted for and advised claimant and respondent employers in the private, public and not-for-profit sectors.
She offers particular expertise in relation to disability and other discrimination cases with a personal injury mental health aspect.
By way of example, recent cases include:
- A claim of alleged disability discrimination, relating to depression and stress at work, providing detailed advice in relation to case preparation
- Representation of a claimant manager in a high value claim for unfair dismissal and victimisation
- Representation of a respondent manager defending a race discrimination claim brought by the deceased’s executors with a high value personal injury aspect
- Representation of a respondent School Governing Body in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of lying about her qualifications
- Representation of a respondent nursery provider in relation to an unfair dismissal claim brought by an employee accused of sexual abuse of a child
- An alleged constructive “whistle-blowing” dismissal where the employee complained of a dangerous workplace
She has undertaken a number of successful judicial and private mediations as an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
In her employment practice she has a particular interest in the education sector and has acted in employment cases concerning staff at nurseries, schools and universities (see also Katherine’s Education Law profile).
How pro-active should an employer be in making enquiries of a job applicant who indicates that they are disabled?24th Aug 2023
A Tribunal's duty to seek clarification of what a claim intended28th Jun 2023
Katherine Anderson considers the case of Mrs N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust:  EAT 204 in which the ET failed to adjudicate upon a claim though its particulars set out sufficient information for it to be considered.
Protection from detriment of employees warning of potentially harmful health and safety circumstances5th Jun 2023
Katherine Anderson considers the case of Miles v Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency  EAT 62 in which the EAT confirmed the scope of the word "at" in the wording "at a place where" of section 44 (1)(c)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The importance of correctly identifying the relevant provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) and pool for comparison, in any indirect discrimination claims5th Jun 2023
Katherine Anderson analyses Royal Parks Ltd v Boohene, Antwi and Others  EAT 63, a case which asked whether workers employed by third-party contractors could rely on the principal's own employees as comparators in a claim of indirect race discrimination relating to rates of pay, under section 41 EqA.
Case Management Order unintentionally struck out claim5th May 2022
Katherine Anderson reviews Mendy v Motorola Solutions UK Ltd and Others  EAT 47, a case in which we are reminded that failure to adequately particuliarise a claim does not mean that it is not being pursued.
EAT confirms a claim cannot be brought for a quantum meruit under the unlawful deductions from wages jurisdiction...25th Feb 2022
...but an employee may have a good claim in the ordinary courts. Katherine Anderson reviews Abellio East Midlands Ltd v Mr K Thomas  EAT 20, a case in which an employee started a new role for their employer before details of the new salary had been agreed.
Two differently constituted tribunals reached different conclusions on the same compulsory retirement policy – but neither made an error of law7th Oct 2021
Katherine Anderson analyses The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford v Professor Paul Ewart EA-2020-000128-RN, which highlights that proportionality assessment means it is possible for different ETs to reach different conclusions when considering the same measure adopted by the same employer in respect of the same aims.
Reasonable adjustments claims: PCPs are not designed to be ‘traps for the unwary’3rd Sep 2021
Katherine Anderson considers Mrs A Martin v City and County of Swansea: EA-2020-000460-AT (Previously UKEAT/0253/20/AT), a case which confirms the importance of properly identifying PCPs in reasonable adjustments claims, whilst deterring respondents’ lawyers from taking overly technical points on pleading.
Is mere suspicion of guilt enough to dismiss a teacher because of safeguarding concerns?3rd Sep 2021
Katherine Anderson analyses the Court of Session's decision in L v K  CSIH 35, a case involving a scenario which practitioners may have encountered before among employers concerned with the safeguarding of children.
Was a claimant prevented from pursuing a personal injury claim in the civil courts for abuse of the court process?3rd Sep 2021
Katherine Anderson examines Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd  EWHC 2418 (QB), the latest in a line of claims where an employee whose claim is compromised in the ET, finds it is then struck out in civil proceedings for abuse of the court’s process.
Can a claimant who has not paid her taxes succeed in a claim for wrongful or unfair dismissal?7th Jul 2021
Katherine Anderson analyses Robinson v His Highness Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al-Qasimi  EWCA Civ 862, a case which highlights the key principles to be applied where an employer raises a defence of illegality, a potential defence which is often considered by employers in disputes over employee status where tax and national insurance have not been paid on the basis that the claimant was an employee.
What is “conduct extending over a period” and how and when should that question be determined?8th Apr 2021
L v 1) X 2) Z & 3) E UKEAT/0080/20/RN
Employment law barrister Katherine Anderson reviews L v 1) X 2) Z & 3) E UKEAT/0080/20/RN and examines the principles considered by the EAT in determining whether there was “conduct extending over a period” for the purposes of section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.
Can a Tribunal use the “but for” test to decide whether a claimant was treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability?3rd Aug 2020
Employment law barrister, Katherine Anderson analyses the case of Robinson v Department for Work and Pensions  EWCA Civ 859 (7th July 2020).
Attending a court to give evidence for the employer is not ‘‘work’’ for the purposes of the ‘furlough’ scheme3rd Jul 2020
3PB's employment law barrister Katherine Anderson reviews the case of Fottles v Bourne Leisure.
Disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? – Rakova v London West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA1st May 2020
Rakova v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0043/19/LA
Employees can often complain where they feel that their managers are not giving them the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently, effectively or productively. How does that situation relate to a disability discrimination claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments? This decision provides some guidance on the approach to be taken by the Tribunals in claims of disability discrimination by reason of a failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – how does it fit with the existing law on lay-offs and short-time working?7th Apr 2020
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – how does it fit with the existing law on lay-offs and short-time working?
Long term disability benefits: it all depends on the contract3rd Mar 2020
Long term disability benefits: it all depends on the contract. Katherine Anderson on ICTS (UK) Limited v VISRAM  EWCA Civ 202
Reasonable adjustments – Is it relevant that the employee didn’t mention them?7th Feb 2020
Reasonable adjustments – Is it relevant that the employee didn’t mention them? Katherine Anderson analyses Shah v TIAA Ltd UKEAT/0180/19/BA, following her successful representation of the respondent employer in this appeal before the EAT.
Legal advice privilege8th Nov 2019
Legal advice privilege: Katherine Anderson analyses Curless v Shell International Ltd  EWCA Civ 1710
The implications of Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker UKEAT/0241/16/RN on employer liability for acts of victimisation13th Apr 2017
3PB Employment Barrister Katherine Anderson examines the implications of Peninsula v Baker on employer liability for acts of victimisation. Katherine Anderson examines if an employer can escape "scot-free" from liability for an act of victimisation if it is 'astute enough' to instruct an innocent third party – or employee - to carry it out.
Katherine Anderson is a strong advocate who enjoys a varied caseload which covers employment and education law. She is active in discrimination claims and EAT appeals.
Strengths: “Katherine was very helpful. I would recommend Katherine to colleagues.”
“Katherine is a very skilled advocate with substantial legal analytical skills.”
“Katherine's very responsive; she provided particularly useful written submissions, and gave helpful advice in relation to strategy.”
Chambers UK 2024/Employment/Western Bar
Strengths: “She is diligent and has great attention to detail.”
“She is technically excellent and a great advocate.”
Chambers UK 2023/Employment/Western Bar
Strengths: "She has excellent attention to detail on difficult cases and responds extremely promptly." "She is diligent and has very great attention to detail. We consider her a very technically adept lawyer, who can really drive down into conflicting case law."
Chambers UK 2022/Employment/Western Bar
Strengths: "She is extremely thorough and detailed in her preparation and advice. She is meticulous in her attention to detail and excellent for complex cases."
Chambers UK 2021/Employment/Western Bar
‘Katherine is forensic in her approach. She looks at all angles and considers all options. A very diligent advocate. ’
Legal 500 2024/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar
‘Katherine is extremely bright, client-friendly and meticulous in her preparation and written work. ’
Legal 500 2023/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar
‘Katherine has a wealth of experience in SEND appeals and is very thorough in her approach; she is a robust advocate and her preparation is always meticulous.’
Legal 500 2022/Education/Leading Junior/London Bar
‘Highly intelligent, thorough in her work and is a tenacious barrister.’
Legal 500 2021/Education/Leading Individual/London Bar