The two-stage shifting burden in discrimination claims under s.136 Equality Act 2010. Igen v Wong; Madarassy v Nomura International plc.
Discrimination; unreasonable treatment; unreasonable treatment is not discrimination unless it is because of a protected characteristic.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; burden of proof; clarified the two-stage test for shifting the burden to the employer. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; burden of proof; a difference in status and difference in treatment is not enough to shift the burden.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
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.
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
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. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
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.) [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
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. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
“The harassment finding cannot stand as it was based on the direct discrimination determination. On remission the Employment Tribunal will have to decide whether this allegation should be analysed as harassment or direct discrimination, because it cannot be both.”HHJ James Tayler, at [122]
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.