Site icon swarb.co.uk

London Borough of Camden v Miah: EAT 26 Jan 2009

EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination / Burden of proof
The Claimant was made redundant after being placed in a pool of one. He brought proceedings alleging race discrimination and victimisation. In finding for him the Tribunal assumed a hypothetical comparator of a different race but did not consider how such a comparator would have been treated. It merely assumed that because there was a hypothetical comparator the onus of proof had passed and then found the onus had not discharged. The Tribunal also assumed the ‘reverse burden’ applied to the victimisation claim.

Judges:

Reid QC J

Citations:

[2009] UKEAT 0031 – 08 – 2601

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280160

Exit mobile version