The Claimant (a Hindu police officer) claimed religious discrimination arising out of a decision taken by a Chief Inspector in 2018 that he could not transfer to the Brent area because of his long association with the Hindu Temple in Neasden. A year later in 2019 a different Chief Inspector indicated that the rationale for the earlier decision no longer applied and that he could after all apply for the transfer. The Claimant sought to rely on this change of position in support of his case of discrimination and sought disclosure of documents related to the 2019 decision.
The EJ refused the application and ruled that the Claimant could not rely on the 2019 decision.
The EJ’s decision relied in part on a finding that there had been a change of circumstances in that the Claimant had given up the role of deputy security manager at the Temple between the 2018 and 2019 decisions. On analysis of the 2018 emails it was clear that that was a factual error since the Claimant had informed the Chief Inspector of his resignation as deputy security manager several days before the decision was communicated to him.
Since the EJ’s decision had proceeded on a false basis it could not stand and the EAT set it aside and remitted it to be decided by a new EJ. The EAT’s decision applied both in relation to the disclosure application and the refusal to allow the Claimant to rely on the 2019 decision, which was expressed to be contingent on the disclosure application.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0301 – 19 – 1103
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.650919
