The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work.
Held: To establish sex discrimination a woman does not need to show that her pregnancy was the only cause, or even the main cause, of her being dismissed; it is enough if it was an effective cause. The Tribunal misdirected itself that the Appellant had to establish both the test for automatic unfair dismissal and the test for sex discrimination, and the reasons had failed to deal in sufficient detail with the factual disputes.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
Judges:
Mr Recorder Underhill QC
Citations:
EAT/0381/00, [2001] UKEAT 0381 – 00 – 0609
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Applied – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School EAT 7-Jun-1996
The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. . .
See Also – Martin v Goldsobel EAT 9-Jun-2000
. .
Cited – Lewis Woolf Griptight Ltd v Corfield EAT 25-Mar-1997
The applicant succeeded on her claim of sex discrimination even though her pregnancy was not the principal reason for her dismissal (and therefore the claim for automatic unfair dismissal failed). . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168321