The Claimant submitted that the Tribunal had erred in finding that there was no ‘protected act’ for the purposes of ss26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010. It concluded that the Claimant could not have been harassed or victimised on the ground of sex since the protected acts relied on Respondents were not based on her protected characteristic, sex. The Claimant further submitted that she was entitled to allege victimisation under s. 27 of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis that she had disclosed an intention to raise tribunal proceedings based on her protected characteristic. Held that the Tribunal was on the facts entitled to conclude that the offending email did not allege sex discrimination and that the EAT could not disturb its finding. Held further that the Claimant was not entitled to seek to prove an intention to raise proceedings as they had not given notice of this ground of discrimination under s. 27(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and that the evidence said to establish the protected act was not apt to support the Claimant’s appeal.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0031 – 19 – 1612
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.661667
