The appellant challenged dismissal of his claim for race discrimination. In the midst of a dispute with the employer University. He was dissatisfied with the support given by his union. He was refused legal assistance save through a firm of lawyers who acted for the union.
Held: the Tribunal were obliged to give a clear explanation of why they had not drawn an inference of race discrimination.
Judges:
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Wall
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 329, Gazette 22-May-2003, A1/2002/1022
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Deman v Association of University Teachers and others EAT 5-Feb-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination. . .
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
See also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 12-Jan-2000
. .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Cited by:
Cited – Madden v Preferred Technical Group CHA Limited, Guest CA 27-Aug-2004
The claimant had made a complaint of race discrimination. The complaint was dismissed. Some time later the company dismissed him, and he again lodged a complaint. The tribunal found him unfairly dismissed, but again not discriminated against.
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers CA 1-Nov-2002
Application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179921