EAT Victimisation
Burden of proof
Appeal – Perversity challenge on finding important for remedy.
Cross-Appeal – Did ET misdirect itself on burden of proof on victimisation claim.
As a matter of construction, the provisions of section 54A RRA did not apply to a claim of victimisation under section 2.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie
Citations:
UKEAT/0557/06/DA, [2007] UKEAT 0557 – 06 – 1306, [2007] ICR 1693
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Fosh v Cardiff University EAT 23-Jan-2008
The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed . .
Appeal from – Oyarce v Cheshire County Council CA 2-May-2008
The court was asked as to whether the provisions for the reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases was limited to findings of discrimination or extended also to issues of victimisation, and as to whether section 5A had properly . .
Applied – Munu v Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Trust and others EAT 5-Nov-2007
EAT Sex Discrimination – Victimisation / Inferring discrimination
Practice and Procedure
Application of s54A of the Race Relations Act 1976 to victimisation claims: Oyarce v Cheshire County Council . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258500
