EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination – Burden of proof – Comparison – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Other forms of discrimination – HARRASSMENT
The Claimant, Nigerian in origin, born in North London and a British citizen, was commissioned in the Army as a medical cadet. Her service in the Army commenced on graduation having read medicine, on 1 July 2008. By 5 August 2009, she qualified as a fully registered medical practitioner and was promoted from the rank of lieutenant, which she held from 5 August 2008, to the rank of captain. Her status until then was on a non-deployed basis. To be admitted to the army as a medical practitioner the Claimant would have to pass both the Sandhurst Professionally Qualified Officer training course and a second training course devoted to the practice of medicine in the Army. On 6 October 2010 she commenced the first training course at Sandhurst. On 13 December 2010 the Tribunal found that she comprehensively failed the first course. She was not permitted to resit the course and, as a consequence was discharged from the Army.
The Claimant contended before the Tribunal that she had in fact passed the course and alleged that she was subjected to a series of detriments and to less favourable treatment because of her race. She contended that she was unjustifiably marked down during assessments, that she was sworn at, and that she was singled out and subjected to a high degree of hostility. She contended that her ultimate discharge from the Army was tainted by unlawful race discrimination and was an act of unlawful victimisation in addition. These contentions were all rejected by the Tribunal.
On appeal it was argued that the Claimant’s many claims were dealt with in isolation from each other and the totality of the evidence was not looked at, nor was a proper comparative exercise conducted. Further, she contended that there were errors of law in the Employment Tribunal’s approach to victimisation and harassment. These arguments were rejected:
(a) the Employment Tribunal made proper findings supported by the evidence rejecting the Claimant’s case that she was singled out for hostile and unjustifiable treatment. The case was different to X v Y;
(b) the Employment Tribunal focused on the ‘reason why’ and accepted the Respondent’s explanations as wholly explaining the impugned treatment without reference to her race;
c) there was no error of law in the approach to the victimisation and harassment claims.
The appeal therefore failed.
Simler J
[2015] UKEAT 0225 – 14 – 1805
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550672