EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct / Comparison
Practice and Procedure – Perversity
The Appellant claimed that she had been the victim of sex discrimination in that two named male comparators were allocated more extra work hours than she. The rotas showed that that was so. The Tribunal rejected the claim in one short paragraph, finding that there was no evidence of preferential treatment.
Held that (1) the Tribunal’s reasoning was wholly insufficient
(2) the conclusion that there was no evidence of preferential treatment was perverse.
Appeal allowed; remission to a fresh Tribunal.
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0325 – 07 – 2306
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.270302