Black students of African origin, had been excluded from school after an incident. They appealed rejection of their claims for race discrimination and victimisation, saying that they had been at first excluded wrongfully.
Held: ‘Consideration of motive is rarely an attractive or useful forensic exercise . . . In discrimination cases, the better course is for consideration to focus on whether discrimination is ‘on racial grounds’, keeping in mind that racial grounds may be conscious or unconscious on the part of the discriminator. However, it does not follow that, by lapsing into the language of motive, a decision strays into legal error. ‘ The judge had said that the applicants had not raised sufficient evidence to transfer the burden of proof to the school, but even had they done so, the school had given an explanation which would have discharged that burden. In considering the first stage, the court was entitled to look to the respondent’s explanation also, and ‘Whilst there is a distinction between fact and explanation, these categories cannot always be hermetically sealed.’ and ‘the mere establishment of a difference of race and a difference in treatment is not enough to cause the burden to be transferred under section 57ZA. It is for the claimant at least to establish facts from which it could be inferred that there has been discrimination ‘on racial grounds.’
Assessors in the County court is to assist the judge, and they are not part of the decision making team. The court’s judgment here had misdescribed their role, but that error was of no significance.
Mummery LJ, Laws LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 10
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976 57ZA
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive v Singh CA 1988
The court identified ‘a conscious or unconscious racial attitude which involves stereotyped assumptions’ underlying discrimination. Statistical evidence may be used to establish a discernible pattern in the treatment of a particular group such as to . .
Cited – Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Ltd v Abi Adebayo EAT 22-Mar-2005
EAT Race Discrimination – Burden of proof.
The court considered the insidious nature of racism and discrimination: ‘ . . discriminatory assumptions will frequently underpin the stated reason, even where the . .
Cited – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Cited – Brown v London Borough of Croydon and Another CA 26-Jan-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 . .
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
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 . .
Cited – Laing v Manchester City Council EAT 28-Jul-2006
The Tribunal considered whether there was a need rigidly to approach the test for discrimination by application of the two stage test in Igen v Wong. Elias J said: ‘where the tribunal has effectively acted at least on the assumption that the burden . .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Brown v London Borough of Croydon and Another CA 26-Jan-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 . .
Cited – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Cited – Atabo v Kings College London and others Newman, Methven, Law CA 19-Apr-2007
The claimant sought leave to appeal dismissal of her claim for discrimination, saying that the EAT had missapplied the test in Madarassy and associated cases on the burden of proof.
Held: ‘the applicant did not make out a prima facie case of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.248233
