EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Detriment – – Other forms of victimisation
The Appellant had brought a successful race discrimination claim against her employer, the First Respondent, in 2007. In 2011 she raised a grievance against two colleagues. The Second Respondent (the First Respondent’s Human Resources Director) decided to intervene in the grievance in part because she had brought the previous claim, which was a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010. He approached the two colleagues without informing the Appellant and persuaded them to send her letters of apology which he had drafted and which were designed to look spontaneous. That was in breach of procedure and when she discovered what had happened the Appellant brought a grievance against the Second Respondent saying his actions were humiliating and insulting.
The Employment Tribunal found (on a remission from the Employment Appeal Tribunal) that although the Second Respondent’s decision to intervene was because of the protected act, the way in which he had intervened was not. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons for reaching that conclusion were not very clear and appeared inconsistent with express findings (at paragraph 38 in the Reasons) that the Second Respondent wished to avoid the matter escalating in part because of the earlier successful claim and that his actions were part of a plan designed to get the Appellant to decide to take her grievance no further.
The victimisation claim was remitted again to a fresh Employment Tribunal.
Judges:
Shanks J
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0263 – 16 – 0203
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582063
