EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proofThe Employment Tribunal did not apply section 54A(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The facts upon which the Claimant relied, taken as a whole were such that the Tribunal could conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the Respondent refused or deliberately omitted to offer him … Continue reading Bouzir v Country Style Foods Ltd: EAT 18 May 2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION Inferring discrimination Burden of proof UNFAIR DISMISSAL Procedural fairness / automatically unfair dismissalThe Employment Tribunal misdirected themselves in applying Section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976. They erred in holding that the burden of proof passed to the Respondents on the Claimant establishing a prima facie case that they could have … Continue reading Hammonds Llp and Others v Mwitta: EAT 1 Oct 2010
The court was asked whether the statutory burden of proof in a case of alleged direct race discrimination was properly understood and applied by the Employment Tribunal in accordance with section 54A(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended. Held: The appeal was allowed. The ET had erred as to the law. Judges: Mummery, … Continue reading St Christopher’s Fellowship v Walters-Ennis: CA 30 Jul 2010
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct / Burden of proof VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-BarkeNumerous complaints of direct discrimination/victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA). Whether the Employment Tribunal reasoning passed the Meek test. With one exception it did not; those matters remitted to fresh Employment Tribunal for rehearing. On the question, does s.54A … Continue reading Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust and Another v Maruziva: EAT 9 Oct 2009
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proofRACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination Tribunal found Claimant to have suffered both sex and race discrimination in course of her employment as a consultant orthodontist. On appeal, Tribunal found to have failed to carry out a like for like comparison with chosen comparators and to have, wrongly, only considered Appellants’ submissions … Continue reading Grampian Health Board v Hewage: EAT 4 Feb 2009
The court was asked as to whether the provisions for the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases was limited to findings of discrimination or extended also to issues of victimisation, and as to whether section 5A had properly incorporated the European Directive. Held: The test in section 54A and in Igen v … Continue reading Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: CA 2 May 2008
EAT Unfair dismissal – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalPractice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-BarkeRace discrimination – Direct / Burden of proof / VictimisationIt being common ground that the Employment Tribunal directed itself correctly on the law, its application to the facts was not perverse. The Employment Tribunal approached the burden of proof correctly, except for holding … Continue reading Birmingham City Council and Another v Samuels: EAT 24 Oct 2007
The claimant appealed dismissals of his claim for race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. In a new job, other team members said they were uncomfortable alone with him, and his probationary period was extended because of his failure to fit in. He said the tribunal had erred in failing to apply the two stage test set … Continue reading Brown v London Borough of Croydon and Another: CA 26 Jan 2007
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005
Judges: Mummery, Richards, Rimer LJJ Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1519 Links: Bailii Statutes: Race Relations Act 1976 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Bouzir v Country Style Foods Ltd EAT 18-May-2011 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proofThe Employment Tribunal did not apply section 54A(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The facts … Continue reading Country Style Foods Ltd v Bouzir: CA 8 Dec 2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Case managementUNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissalRACE DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proofAn Employment Tribunal did not err in law when it upheld the Claimant’s claim in part that she had been discriminated against by being excluded from a recruitment process, in which as a manager she should have been involved, on the ground of … Continue reading St Christopher’s Fellowship v Walters-Ennis: EAT 8 Oct 2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Inferring DiscriminationTribunal wrong to apply test in King v Great Britain-China Centre [1992] ICR 516 instead of applying s.54A of Race Relations Act 1976 on the basis that the Claimant was claiming ‘colour discrimination’ – Chagger v Abbey National plc [2009] ICR 624 followed – but held that there was on … Continue reading Edozie v Group 4 Securicor Plc and Another: EAT 3 Jun 2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct / Burden of proof / Other losses PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Delay in ET judgment STATUTORY DISCIPLINE and GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES: Impact on compensation C, aged 40, dismissed from bank ostensibly for redundancy, but the dismissal held by the Employment Tribunal to have been unfair and on racial grounds – Decision announced informally … Continue reading Abbey National Plc and Another v Chagger: EAT 16 Oct 2008
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003
EAT Race discriminationThe burden of proof in section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976 does not apply to cases of direct discrimination on the grounds of nationality or colour. In such cases the less stringent burden of proof set out in King v Great Britain – China Centre [1992] ICR 516 and Anya v … Continue reading Okonu v G4S Security Services (UK) Ltd: EAT 11 Feb 2007
The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed victimisation. After the case failed, she was herself suspended, and her email account searched from which further disciplinary charges were … Continue reading Fosh v Cardiff University: EAT 23 Jan 2008
EAT Victimisation Burden of proof Appeal – Perversity challenge on finding important for remedy. Cross-Appeal – Did ET misdirect itself on burden of proof on victimisation claim.As a matter of construction, the provisions of section 54A RRA did not apply to a claim of victimisation under section 2. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie Citations: … Continue reading Oyarce v Cheshire County Council: EAT 13 Jun 2007
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality of the evidence on any material … Continue reading Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another: CA 22 Mar 2001
mod_fletcherEAT2009 EAT SEX DISCRIMINATIONInjury to feelingsSEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATIONWhere there is overlap between the basis of aggravated damages and compensation for injury to feelings, double counting should be avoided but a reasonable sum may be awarded for uncompensated aggravating elements of the conduct which forms the basis of the awards – Vento v Chief Constable of … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Fletcher: EAT 9 Oct 2009
pwc_popaEAT10 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATIONPost employmentBurden of ProofIn determining a claim of post termination victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 the Employment Tribunal did not fail to consider the reason why the employer gave a different form of reference to the Claimant than they would have given to a comparator. They did not fail to … Continue reading Pricewaterhouse Coopers Llp v Popa: EAT 12 Oct 2010
