EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proof
RACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination
Tribunal found Claimant to have suffered both sex and race discrimination in course of her employment as a consultant orthodontist. On appeal, Tribunal found to have failed to carry out a like for like comparison with chosen comparators and to have, wrongly, only considered Appellants’ submissions anent inappropriateness of comparators at the second stage of the ‘Igen’ test. There was no material on which the Tribunal could properly have inferred that there was a like for like comparison being relied on by the Claimant and so no basis for inferring discrimination. Appeal upheld and claims of discrimination dismissed.
Judges:
Lady Smith
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0016 – 08 – 0402
Links:
Statutes:
Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976 54A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Igen Ltd v Wong CA 18-Feb-2005
Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process
Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted.
Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hewage v Grampian Health Board SCS 14-Jan-2011
The claimant had succeeded in her claim for constructive unfair dismissal, and of sex and race discrimation at the tribunal. The EAT reversed the discrimination findings saying that the claimant had not set them out in her ET1, and the Tribunal had . .
At EAT – Hewage v Grampian Health Board SC 25-Jul-2012
The claimant had been employed as a consultant orthodontist. She resigned claiming constructive dismissal and sex and race discrimination. The EAT reversed the findings on discrimination saying that they had not been sufficiently pleaded. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, Scotland
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341208