EAT SUMMARY
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Withdrawal
The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the Claimant that she had been racially and sexually discriminated against as a French woman of black Afro-Caribbean origin, save in one respect as to which it wished to hear more from the parties at a further hearing. This was whether there was any defence to a claim for discrimination where it was admitted that the employer had not appointed the Claimant as a Project Manager (Military) because the US Government, as a major customer, had until 2007 proscribed French nationals from being engaged in such a capacity in the employment of those contracted to supply parts for arms and military aircraft (as were the Respondent employers). At the hearing, the Employment Tribunal considered that the Claimant’s lay representative (a non-practising barrister) had abandoned a claim that to apply a foreign requirement not to employ persons of her race was discriminatory, in order to focus on a claim that the employer more generally discriminated deliberately against her on the ground of her race, sex or nationality.
It was held that the ET did not take the correct approach in law to determining whether there had been an abandonment: it needed to know that any abandonment was clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, and that could not be said of what had happened before the Tribunal.
Remitted to the same Tribunal for further hearing.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0145 – 11 – 1002
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452336