EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Inferring discrimination
An employee who was black was treated disadvantageously when compared to an Asian employee found to be in the same material circumstances. Though the Employment Tribunal accepted this did not without more justify a shifting of the burden of proof, it held that there was more. However, it did not identify the ‘more’, and left it unclear as to whether it might simply have relied upon different race, different status, and detriment as needing to be explained by cogent evidence from the employer. This was an error of law. However, held that a finding that there had been a number of explanations offered for the difference in treatment all of which were not believed could be taken into account in determining whether the burden of proof shifted. Accordingly, the case was remitted to the same Tribunal to consider the same facts in the light of submissions in accordance with the EAT’s Judgment.
Judges:
Langstaff J P
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0564 – 11 – 0307
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463765
