EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination; Burden of proof
Sex and race discrimination. Was the Tribunal entitled to find that Claimant had established a prima facie case? If so, did it properly analyse the nature of the legal burden on the employer once the onus of proof had shifted? The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) answered yes to the former and no to the latter. Observations on whether a Tribunal should indicate whether it is making a finding of conscious or unconscious discrimination.
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination; Burden of proof
Sex and race discrimination. Was the Tribunal entitled to find that Claimant had established a prima facie case? If so, did it properly analyse the nature of the legal burden on the employer once the onus of proof had shifted? The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) answered yes to the former and no to the latter. Observations on whether a Tribunal should indicate whether it is making a finding of conscious or unconscious discrimination.
Judges:
Elias J P
Citations:
[2006] UKEAT 0642 – 05 – 2305, [2006] IRLR 865, UKEAT/0642/05
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – 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.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242596