A recent judgement from a landmark employment case against British Cycling and UK Sport found that Jess Varnish, a former professional British cyclist, was neither an employee nor a worker of either organisation within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Equality Act 2010. The relationship between the cyclist and British Cycling was judged to be more akin to a relationship between a student and a University (eg, service provider), and that funding provided to the cyclist by UK Sport was analogous to a grant.1 Jess Varnish brought her claims of unfair dismissal (ie, termination of her Athlete Performance Award, which is a means-tested financial contribution towards an athlete’s living expenses), direct sex discrimination, victimisation and unlawful detriment for having made protected disclosures (ie, whistle-blowing) to the Employment Tribunal.1 She sought protections offered to employees or workers but not offered to professional athletes. The case highlights a problem: athletes are not considered to be employees nor workers and therefore are not entitled to employee nor worker protection, but no other equivalent form of protection for athletes exists. Why …

中文翻译：

---

努力是人性，虐待是恶意的：职业运动员的歧视和非意外暴力没有员工式的法定保护

告）到就业法庭。1 她寻求向雇员或工人提供保护，但未向职业运动员提供保护。该案突出了一个问题：运动员不被视为雇员或工人，因此无权获得雇员或工人的保护，但不存在其他对运动员的等效保护形式。为什么 …