EAT Religion or Belief
Claimant brought a claim for direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical beliefs, and also victimisation discrimination. He was a Rastafarian and claimed that he had been discriminated against for that reason. It was accepted that this was a philosophical belief falling within the terms of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations. The Tribunal rejected all these claims. He appealed against the finding that there was no indirect discrimination and alleged that the tribunal had not given proper consideration to the victimisation discrimination claim. The Respondent conceded the latter but held that the finding of unfair dismissal was justified. The EAT agreed, notwithstanding some unsatisfactory features of the Tribunal’s analysis. Their findings of fact precluded any possibility of a finding of indirect discrimination. Accordingly the case was remitted to the Tribunal to consider victimisation discrimination only.
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0134 – 07 – 0310
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259825