EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Victimisation
The judgment of this Tribunal in Martin v Devonshire Solicitors [2011] ICR 352 should not be used as a template into which to fit the factual aspects of a case in which victimisation was alleged. It related to exceptional circumstances and Employment Tribunals need to be cautious about regarding features such as a multiplicity of grievances and obsessive over-reaction by an employee as exceptional. Here the Employment Tribunal had erred in regarding the instant case as ‘on all fours’ with Martin; it was not and few cases will be. The appeal was allowed and a finding of victimisation substituted.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey Deduction
Having regard to the substituted finding of victimisation, the Polkey deduction appeal was also allowed and the deduction quashed. If it had been necessary to consider the appeals on the merits, it would have been allowed on the basis that neither party had been given the opportunity to make submissions by the Employment Tribunal been remitted to the same Tribunal of a re-hearing on that point.
Hand QC
[2013] UKEAT 0007 – 12 – 0506, [2013] IRLR 773, [2013] Eq LR 796
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Martin v Devonshires Solicitors EAT 9-Dec-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION
C, a legal secretary in a firm of solicitors, as a result of mental illness makes false allegations against partners of discriminatory conduct (contrary to SDA and DDA) – Unwilling to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510274