EAT Practice and Procedure: Striking-Out/Dismissal – SEX DISCRIMINATION – Indirect
Striking out – indirect sex discrimination claim – identification of PCP – objective justification
The ET had struck out the Claimant’s claim of indirect sex discrimination in circumstances in which it had been agreed that there were no disputes of fact and the ET had all the evidential material before it to carry out its task.
On the Claimant’s appeal.
Held: dismissing the appeal. The ET had proceeded on the basis of the case pursued by the Claimant, as clarified at an earlier case management discussion and without the Claimant having taken issue with the identification of the PCP. The PCP had legitimately been identified as the application of Standard Operating Procedure 8, relating to the recruitment of police officers and civilian staff, where the applicant had previous criminal convictions. Allowing this placed men at a disadvantage as compared to women (being more likely to have previous criminal convictions), the ET nevertheless found the Respondent was bound to make good its defence of justification such as to mean the Claimant’s claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The ET had been entitled to proceed on the agreed basis that there was no dispute of fact, there was no need to call oral evidence and all the relevant material was available at the Preliminary Hearing. In those circumstances, it could not be said that the ET had erred in law.
Judges:
Eady QC HHJ
Citations:
[2016] UKEAT 0184 – 16 – 0811
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573476