EAT Sex discrimination: was Employment Tribunal’s approach to the evidence and the drawing of inferences incorrect and such as to cause it to misinterpret and misapply the burden of proof: was there a failure to consider or find a discriminatory state of affairs, and hence a continuing act from the evidence as a whole, even though all but one of the individual complaints of discrimination were rejected by the Tribunal; was the discretion to extend time exercised properly; did the Tribunal treat the question of the hypothetical male correctly, in particular on the pregnancy/maternity leave issues.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Nelson
Citations:
UKEAT/0326/03, [2004] UKEAT 0326 – 03 – 1612
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 4-Apr-2006
. .
See Also – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc QBD 6-Apr-2006
. .
See Also – Madarassy v Nomura International Plc CA 26-Jan-2007
The claimant appealed against adverse findings on her claims of sex discrimination. The court considered questions arising from the provisions relating to the transfer of the burden of proof in a discrimination case.
Held: Questions of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220426
