Employment Appeal Tribunal Reconsiders Religion or Belief Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a previous ruling on religion or belief discrimination, sending the case back for a fresh look.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Reviews Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that the Employment Tribunal made errors in law regarding the burden of proof in a religion or belief discrimination claim. The case, Clifton Diocese v Miss Janet Parker, has been remitted back to the Employment Tribunal for redetermination.
The original Employment Tribunal had found that Miss Parker had been subjected to direct discrimination because of her religion or belief. This included allegations concerning the addition of disciplinary charges, the rushing of the investigation and disciplinary process, failing to consider her health, and mocking her during the disciplinary hearing. A linked complaint of harassment was also upheld.
However, the EAT identified issues with how the Employment Tribunal applied the burden of proof. The appeal judgment highlights that the original tribunal's reliance on a lack of explanation for actions taken primarily by individuals other than the main respondent in the discrimination claim, Mrs. Lawrence, was a significant error. The EAT noted that the original tribunal's reasoning was "perverse and/or the analysis of the Employment Tribunal was not adequately explained."
Specifically, the EAT found that the original tribunal incorrectly used the conduct of Mrs. Murray and Mr. Cook to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Mrs. Lawrence. It was also highlighted that the tribunal erred in considering the explanation for conduct at the first stage of the burden of proof analysis, rather than at the second stage after the burden had shifted. Furthermore, the EAT pointed out that the tribunal inconsistently found explanations for some conduct while simultaneously deeming it unexplained, and it conflated findings on unfair dismissal with those on discrimination.
The EAT also addressed the harassment finding, stating it could not stand as it was based on the direct discrimination determination. On remission, the Employment Tribunal will need to decide whether this should be analysed as harassment or direct discrimination, as it cannot be both.
The Employment Tribunal's original findings of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, which were not challenged on appeal, remain. The EAT has directed that the case should be remitted to the same Employment Tribunal panel for redetermination, unless specific impracticalities arise, to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Read the entire judgment here: Clifton Diocese v Miss Janet Parker EAT 68
