The two-stage shifting burden in discrimination claims under s.136 Equality Act 2010. Igen v Wong; Madarassy v Nomura International plc.
Discrimination; burden of proof; set the guidelines for shifting the burden to the employer.
Discrimination; unreasonable treatment; unreasonable treatment is not discrimination unless it is *because of* a protected characteristic.
Discrimination; burden of proof; clarified the two-stage test for shifting the burden to the employer.
Discrimination; burden of proof; the tribunal can consider the employer's explanation at the first stage.
Discrimination; burden of proof; where an all-male workforce exists, the burden may shift to explain why a woman was rejected.
Discrimination; burden of proof; a difference in status and difference in treatment is not enough to shift the burden.
Discrimination; race; shifting the burden of proof requires facts from which discrimination *could* be inferred.
Discrimination; burden of proof; the Supreme Court held that the two-stage burden of proof test is a tool, not a substitute for the tribunal's duty to find the facts and draw inferences.
Discrimination; burden of proof; the Court of Appeal confirmed that the burden remains on the claimant at the first stage to prove facts from which the tribunal could conclude discrimination. It rejected the EAT's suggestion in Efobi that the burden of proof was neutral at stage one.
Discrimination; burden of proof; Supreme Court confirmed the two-stage section 136 EqA framework. The claimant must first establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred; the tribunal should consider the totality of the evidence rather than compartmentalising stage 1 to the claimant's evidence alone. (Cited at the Supreme Court as Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi.)
Religion or belief discrimination; burden of proof. ET erred by: (1) aggregating conduct of multiple respondents into a blanket prima facie case rather than analysing each act against the specific alleged discriminator; (2) treating the respondent's lack of explanation as a stage-one factor, when absence of explanation is relevant only at stage two; (3) failing to engage with a non-discriminatory explanation already found for the unfair dismissal claim. Judgment includes five sense-check questions for the two-stage s.136 EqA analysis.