Employee Wins Appeal Against British Council Over Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned a previous ruling, finding the British Council liable for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
• public
Employee's Appeal Succeeds Against British Council in Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has allowed an employee's appeal, overturning a significant portion of an Employment Tribunal's (ET) decision regarding deductions from compensation. The case, K J v British Council, centred on claims of constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
The original ET had found that the British Council was liable for multiple breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence, as well as discriminatory and harassing conduct. However, the ET applied a 35% reduction to both unfair dismissal and discrimination compensation. This reduction was based on the possibility that the claimant might have left her employment due to organisational restructuring, a reduced benefits package, or personal considerations regarding a move to the UK.
The claimant appealed these deductions, arguing they were wrongly applied. The EAT agreed, stating that the ET failed to properly consider what would have happened had none of the discriminatory acts occurred. Specifically, the tribunal needed to assess whether the claimant's thoughts about leaving were influenced by the harassment she experienced. Consequently, the 35% deduction for discrimination compensation could not stand.
In a cross-appeal, the British Council argued that the sexual harassment claim was out of time. However, the EAT dismissed this argument. The tribunal determined that the sexual harassment formed part of a continuing discriminatory state of affairs that culminated in the grievance report, meaning the claim was presented within the time limits. While an alternative finding that it was just and equitable to extend time was found to be flawed, it did not alter the overall outcome due to the successful "continuing state of affairs" argument.
The EAT allowed the claimant's appeal concerning the Chagger deduction, finding that the ET had not correctly assessed the counterfactual scenario required for discrimination compensation. The tribunal's initial reasoning for the deductions was deemed inadequate and not fully supported by the evidence when considering the impact of the discriminatory actions on the claimant's decision-making process.
The EAT's decision means the compensation awarded to the claimant will be recalculated without the disputed 35% reduction for discrimination. The British Council's cross-appeal regarding the timeliness of the sexual harassment claim was dismissed.
Read the entire judgment here: K J v British Council EAT 46
