EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
The appellant identified 11 specific acts of discrimination against him on grounds of race or religion in dealing with which he argued the Tribunal had erred in law, by failing to find the true facts, failing to shift the burden of proof to the employer, or failing adequately to explain its reasoning. Although the Tribunal’s approach to at least one was muddled, in respect of its application of the burden of proof provisions (of which, conspicuously, it did not remind itself) properly understood the Tribunal sufficiently expressed its reasons for reaching the decisions it did, most of which turned entirely on findings of fact it was entitled to make, and none of which betrayed any error of law.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0160 – 11 – 2901
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470764
