EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Detriment
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
Wrongful dismissal
Appellant wrongly and unreasonably accused by employers of sexual harassment. Employers accept his denial but instruct him not seek to discuss the charges with the alleged victim. Appellant subsequently disobeys that instruction and is summarily dismissed.
Tribunal holds:
(1) Appellant not entitled to a claim that dismissal was discriminatory because no such claim raised until closing submissions.
(2) Original accusations constituted racial discrimination within s.1(1)(a) of Race Relations Act 1976 but not unlawful because they did not constitute a detriment for purposes of s.4(2)(c).
(3) Summary dismissal for disobedience of instruction lawful.
Appeal dismissed on (1) and (3) but allowed on (2) – Making of false and unreasonable disciplinary accusations capable of constituting a detriment even though no sanctions were imposed: De Souza v Automobile Association [1986] ICR 514 considered.
Judges:
Underhill J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0554 – 07 – 1006
Links:
Statutes:
Race Relations Act 1976 1(1)(a) 4(2)
Citing:
Cited – De Souza v Automobile Association CA 19-Dec-1985
The claimant appealed against a finding that there had been no race discrimation in her case. She had overheard a manager refer to her as ‘the wog’. She said that this was sufficient to mean that she suffered a detriment. The employer replied that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Orr v Milton Keynes Council EAT 5-Nov-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL:
Reasonableness of dismissal
RACE DISCRIMINATION:
Direct
Where discrimination and unfair dismissal allegations overlap and the Employment Tribunal hears and disbelieves . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271332