farrar_nypEAT2012
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION
Direct Indirect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
The Claimant was a Detective Sergeant in the Respondent’s force. She was also the principal carer of her three young children and was not required, save on rare occasions, to work at weekends. Her unit was undermanned; she complained about this. In a reorganisation shift and flexible working patterns changed; she was as a result required to work three weekends out of five. She became ill with anxiety and depression; without consultation she was removed from her unit and given a uniformed sergeant’s job. She claimed direct and indirect discrimination and detriment on the grounds of protected disclosures. The Employment Tribunal found against her on all three heads of claim.
She appealed, putting her case forward on two fronts (1) that the ET’s reasons were defective (2) that the ET had made errors of substantive law.
Held:-
1. The EAT would hear and decide on the reasons arguments first; if they succeeded it would be preferable for the EAT not to consider other arguments – there would have to be a re-hearing.
2. On all three heads of claim the ET’s reasons were defective; they did not inform the parties what test had been applied and/or how the ET had reasoned from their findings of fact to their conclusions.
3. There would have to be a re-hearing before a new Tribunal.
Jeffrey Burke QC
[2012] UKEAT 0528 – 11 – 0810
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.464726