The claimant had made a complaint of race discrimination. The complaint was dismissed. Some time later the company dismissed him, and he again lodged a complaint. The tribunal found him unfairly dismissed, but again not discriminated against.
Held: The Tribunal had been wrong to ignore any motive for the action taken. When it found no discrimination, it was obliged to give reasons for that finding. It had done so. Whilst the claimant had been treated less favourably than others, it appeared not to have arisen from his race. ‘Tribunals are not required to draw inferences. They may do so. If they either think that that there is no evidence from which inferences can properly drawn, or if they think the evidence does not warrant the drawing of inferences, they should say so.’ The reason here was the reason was a long standing personality clash between himself and another worker.
Wall LJ said: ‘I do not accept the argument that the hypothetical comparator in a case under RRA 1976 must be, in effect, a clone of the applicant in every respect (including personality and personal characteristics) except that he or she is a different race. Nothing that I read in the speeches in Shamoon leads me to that conclusion, nor does the statute.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hooper Lord Justice Wall
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1178, [2005] IRLR 46
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Deman v Association of University Teachers CA 14-Mar-2003
The appellant challenged dismissal of his claim for race discrimination. In the midst of a dispute with the employer University. He was dissatisfied with the support given by his union. He was refused legal assistance save through a firm of lawyers . .
Cited – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
Cited – Swiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Zafar; Zafar v Glasgow City Council HL 16-Oct-1997
The absence of any other explanation for the unfair dismissal of a black worker, does not of itself and inescapably lead to finding of race bias, or racial discrimination. He had been dismissed following complaints of sexual harassment, later found . .
See Also – Madden v Preferred Technical Group-Cha Ltd and Another EAT 14-Feb-2000
. .
See Also – Madden v Preferred Technical Group – Cha Limited, Michael Guest EAT 21-Jan-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation. . .
See Also – Madden v Preferred Technical Group – CHA Limited, Guest EAT 22-Jan-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Appeal from – Madden v Preferred Technical Group- Cha Ltd M Guest EAT 1-Dec-2003
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200654