Proving a Link Between Unfair Treatment and Discrimination Can Be Tough

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck…

Jan 26, 2021

Pexels tiger lily 4483558 683x1024

It may be relatively straightforward to prove you have suffered unfair treatment at work, but establishing that such treatment results from discrimination can pose a far greater challenge. This was certainly so in an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case concerning a forklift truck driver.

The man launched proceedings following two fractious confrontations between him and colleagues in the car park of the premises where he worked for a logistics company. He alleged that he was falsely and maliciously accused of misconduct arising from the incidents and that the way in which the company dealt with the matters was unfair to him. The company disputed his account of the incidents and denied that he had suffered discrimination of any kind.

Following a preliminary hearing, an Employment Tribunal (ET) struck out his claims of direct race discrimination and race-related harassment on the basis that they stood no reasonable prospect of success. Whilst acknowledging that he felt genuinely aggrieved, the ET noted that he had put forward no explanation as to how his alleged unfair treatment might be linked to his race.

Upholding his appeal against that outcome, the EAT noted that it is well established that unfair treatment is not necessarily to be equated with discriminatory treatment.

However, it is equally well established that discrimination may be inferred if there is no other explanation for unreasonable behaviour. Taken at its highest, there were features of the man’s case which might be capable of giving rise to such an inference.

The ET should therefore have considered whether the burden of proof shifted so that the company was obliged to show an absence of discrimination. Given the draconian nature of the strike out order, the ET had failed to sufficiently consider whether the man’s claims were plainly and obviously bound to fail. The matter was remitted for reconsideration by a freshly constituted ET.

Employment v Self-Employment – This is Why the Distinction Really Matters

Employment law has moved on in leaps and bounds since the bad old days of mass casual labour. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision showed, a large number of people still go to work every day without any clear idea of whether they are employed or self-employed, or any understanding of why that distinction matters. The case concerned a van driver who worked for the same company (C1) for about 17 years before it was taken over by another (C2). The latter accepted that it was obliged by…

Cooling Off Periods and Retraction of Oral Resignations – Guideline Ruling

Large employers often have ‘cooling off’ policies in place which address the common situation of employees orally announcing their resignation in a stressful moment and subsequently having second thoughts. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, such polices, once adopted, must be honoured. The case concerned a supermarket worker who was under strain at home due to her onerous caring responsibilities for sick and elderly relatives. During an understaffed night shift, she became…

Employee Prey to Paranoid Delusions ‘Not Disabled’, Court of Appeal Rules

The statutory definition of ‘disability’ came under close Court of Appeal analysis in an employment case concerning a sales executive plagued by paranoid delusions that he was being followed and constantly monitored by a malign gang of Russians. Following a relationship with a Ukrainian woman, the man developed a belief that he was being tracked in person and in the digital world. He installed CCTV at his home and was nervous about communications technology. He changed his email address at…