Healthcare Support Agency Overturns Direct Race Discrimination Finding

A finding of race discrimination is always an extremely serious matter and that is why a rigorous approach to evidence and proof is required of Employment Tribunals (ETs). In one case, a healthcare support agency accused of subjecting a black worker to less favourable treatment succeeded in…

Jun 22, 2021

Pexels karolina grabowska 4021775 1024x683

A finding of race discrimination is always an extremely serious matter and that is why a rigorous approach to evidence and proof is required of Employment Tribunals (ETs). In one case, a healthcare support agency accused of subjecting a black worker to less favourable treatment succeeded in showing that that high standard was not met.

The worker claimed that the agency failed to respond as it should have done after he twice complained that he had been racially abused by members of another agency’s staff. In upholding his direct race discrimination claim, an ET found that the agency had failed actively to investigate his seriously concerning complaints. That failure, the ET ruled, was entirely unacceptable in a modern workplace.

In allowing the agency’s appeal against that ruling, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) noted that the ET failed to ask itself whether the worker had been treated less favourably than a hypothetical comparator would have been. After finding that the failure to investigate was unreasonable, the ET went straight on to infer that the worker had, on the face of it, established a case of race discrimination.

There were no obvious pointers towards such an inference and, in the absence of any explanation or analysis of the features of a hypothetical comparator, the ET erred in reversing the burden of proof against the agency. The EAT remitted the case to a newly constituted ET for fresh consideration.

Landlords – Keep Your Properties Hazard Free or Face the Full Force of the Law

The balance of power in overheated rental markets where demand outstrips supply tends to shift in favour of landlords. As a High Court ruling showed, however, those involved in renting out defective or hazardous homes are likely to feel the hard edge of both the criminal and civil law. A couple with four young children complained to a local authority about the state of their rental property. A housing enforcement officer visited the house and identified serious hazards, including defective…

COVID-19 – Carer Sacked After Visiting Pub Wins Unfair Dismissal Claim

The pressure put on many employment relationships by COVID-19 was illustrated by the case of a care worker who was sacked by her vulnerable charge’s mother after she went to the pub in the very early stages of the pandemic. The carer was one of a team employed by the mother to look after her daughter, who suffers from cerebral palsy and is particularly susceptible to infection. On Friday, 20 March 2020, she went to the pub with her partner and a friend. At almost exactly the same time, the…

Police Force Transfer Policy Discriminated Against Pregnant Officer

All sorts of provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) that an employer may believe are justified for business or operational reasons might nevertheless be discriminatory. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an ambitious police officer who was shifted to a back-office role after she became pregnant. The woman was a front-line response officer, a role that she had always wanted. She was placed on restrictive duties after becoming pregnant but, following a risk assessment,…