The house considered the burden of proof in cases involving allegations of discrimination.
Held: Lord Morison ‘The requirement necessary to establish less favourable treatment which is laid down by section 1(1) of the Act of 1976 is not one of less favourable treatment than that which would have been accorded by a reasonable employer in the same circumstances, but of less favourable treatment than that which had been or would have been accorded by the same employer in the same circumstances. It cannot be inferred, let alone presumed, only from the fact that an employer has acted unreasonably towards one employee, that he would have acted reasonably if he had been dealing with another in the same circumstances.’
The fact that, for the purposes of the law of unfair dismissal, an employer has acted unreasonably casts no light on the question whether he has treated the employee ‘less favourably’ for the purposes of the 1976 Act: ‘The requirement necessary to establish less favourable treatment which is laid down by section 1(1) of the Act of 1976 is not one of less favourable treatment than that which would have been accorded by a reasonable employer in the same circumstances, but of less favourable treatment than that which had been or would have been accorded by the same employer in the same circumstances. It cannot be inferred, let alone presumed, only from the fact that an employer has acted unreasonably towards one employee, that he would have acted reasonably if he had been dealing with another in the same circumstances.’
Judges:
The Lord Justice Clerk, Lords McCluskey and Morison
Citations:
[1997] SLT 281, [1997] 1 WLR 1659
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Approved – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited by:
Cited – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, G Alltimes v L Ezeonyim EAT 7-Jun-2000
EAT The claimant had succeeded in his claim for race discrimination. The employer appealed, saying the tribunal had misunderstood its harassment procedure so as to be wrong in law. The claimant complained of a . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
Appeal from – Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council HL 16-Oct-1997
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.195023