The Employment Appeal Tribunal ‘EAT’, who recently ruled a woman had been discriminated against because of her caste, gave a “warning’ to employers to make sure they’re recruiting, paying and promoting on merit.

Permila Tirkey was recruited from India and paid only 11p an hour to assume her position as a cleaner and nanny for a family living in the United Kingdom.  The tribunal heard that Tirkey’s family are Adivasi people of “low caste” and her employers made her work 18-hour days, seven days a week as a domestic servant.  Tirkey was awarded £184,000 in unpaid wages in a landmark case deemed “the first successful case of its kind.”

This was not an easy process for Tirkey, though.  The case against her employers was originally dismissed prior to going to an Employment Appeal Tribunal in January of this year.  Tirkey originally claimed compensation for direct (as well as indirect) race discrimination, harassment and religious discrimination.  In May 2013 her claim was amended to say the treatment she received was also due to her ethnic and national origins (status, caste and descent).

Tirkey’s employer fought back citing her claim should be struck out because the Equality Act 2010 doesn’t specifically include caste.  Unfortunately for her employer’s, the EAT upheld the case.

This particular case has implications for the Equality Act and could potentially pave the way for further caste discrimination cases, according to human resource experts.  There are multiple questions surrounding what a caste actually is and how broad this definition extends.  Since this particular case is so highly publicised, HR experts expect to see further caste discrimination cases being brought to tribunal.  The only reason this may not happen, according to sceptics is the recent change to employment tribunal fees.