EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION
Detailed challenges were made to the operation of a redundancy procedure. The EAT held that regard should be had to the judgment of the Tribunal taken overall and in context, and this was clear. Thus both appeal and cross appeal as to a finding of unfair dismissal (by a majority) and nil compensation (applying Polkey) were rejected.
A claim for sex discrimination causing the detriment of dismissal, because the Claimant was regularly late for work by reason of her childcare commitments as a single mother, was rejected since no detriment could be shown in consequence: this decision was not perverse.
An appeal against a finding of race discrimination was also rejected. The act which was held discriminatory was that the Claimant was told not to appeal ‘in her own tongue’ (she being Polish) in a cosmopolitan office, when no one else was so instructed, they being (generally) of other nationalities. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to regard this as so potentially inherently and directly discriminatory as to cause the burden of proof to shift. Having no explanation from the employer, it was entitled to find discrimination established
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0270 – 11 – 2802
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452494
