Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.

The EAT has confirmed that it is not necessary for the eventual transferee to have been identified in order for an employee, dismissed in the run up to a transfer, to claim automatic unfair dismissal by reason of a relevant transfer under TUPE (Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine & another).

In another case involving administrators, an employment tribunal somewhat controversially has held that the individual administrators could be liable as principals in an agency relationship with employees of a company in administration.

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

The number of individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) is set to soar to over 50,000 this year, according to industry sources. This follows two years in which the number of IVAs has been slightly more than 40,000 per year.

Hoping that declaring bankruptcy will stay a discrimination or retaliation lawsuit against you brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) on behalf of a current or former employee? Think again.

EAD Solicitors LLP and others v Abrams UKEAT/0054/15

Why care?

Section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 defines direct discrimination as occurring where “because of a protected characteristic”, a person (A) treats another (B) less favourably than A treats or would treat others. This wording means that B does not have to have the protected characteristic.

The bankruptcy code prohibits an employer from discriminating against or terminating an employee for filing or having filed for bankruptcy protection. A federal court in Wisconsin has extended this retaliation protection to an employee who intended to file for bankruptcy (and later did so). In Robinette v.

Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a new non-judicial receivership al-ternative for resolving troubled financial companies that could threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system (“Covered Financial Companies”), as described further below. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), on October 12, 2010, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “Proposal”) to begin to implement the provisions of Title II.

The United States Bankruptcy Code prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an existing employee because of a bankruptcy filing.