EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Inferring discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
The Tribunal erred in concluding that the Second Respondent, the individual who informed the Claimant of his dismissal, did not say ‘You’re not right for me’ without properly explaining its reasons for so finding. The Tribunal found all of the relevant witnesses on this disputed issue to be credible and that the burden of proof had shifted to the Respondent. However, it could not, without a proper and full explanation, be said (as the Tribunal did) that the account of that matter given by the Second Respondent, on this potentially important issue of fact, was consistent; on the contrary, there were inconsistencies within the evidence which the Tribunal was required to address when setting out its reasoned conclusion on this issue. Once it has undertaken the task of determining an important issue of disputed fact and then explaining its reasons for that decision, it should then carefully consider its decision on the allegation of discrimination having regard to the burden of proof.
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0147 – 17 – 1130
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.603717