EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Direct / Inferring discrimination
The Employment Tribunal dismissed a claim for direct sex discrimination brought by a woman in the Royal Navy Reserve who complained that she had been rejected for the post of Captain and Medical Director by reason of her sex. The claimant appealed, contending that the Tribunal ought to have drawn inferences from the primary facts which shifted the burden of proof in accordance with the well known criteria of Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931; and that the circumstances disclosed clear discrimination.
The EAT dismissed the appeal. Although it would have been desirable for the Tribunal to have dealt more fully with some of the arguments of the claimant, this was not a case like Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377, where material primary facts had not been found or incidents of alleged discrimination not dealt with. The EAT was satisfied that even had the arguments been addressed specifically by the Tribunal the result would have been the same. The Employment Tribunal’s finding that there was no discrimination did not disclose any material error of law so as to undermine its conclusions.
Judges:
Elias P J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0614 – 07 – 3107
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.271326