Palmer v Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Ltd: EAT 6 Jul 2006

EAT The claimant alleged that she had been victimised contrary to the provisions of s.2(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The tribunal were satisfied that the claimant had carried out a protected act and that she had been treated less favourably than an appropriate comparator. The tribunal were of the view that the respondents acted unreasonably in disciplining the claimant but they were not satisfied that there was any direct evidence or evidence from which it could be inferred that that treatment was by reason of her having carried out a protected act. The Employment Appeal Tribunal were not persuaded that their conclusion was a perverse one nor that they should have considered whether the claimant had carried out a protected act under a subparagraph of s.2(1) of the 1976 Act that was not founded on.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0004 – 06 – 0607, UKEATS/0004/06

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 2(1)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243446