Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Ruling in Direct Discrimination Case
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed an appeal, finding the original tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof in a direct discrimination case.
• public
Tribunal Ruling Confirmed in Discrimination Appeal
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Laffy against the WKCIC Group, trading as Capital City College Group. The case, which centred on claims of direct discrimination, has concluded with the EAT finding no fault in the original tribunal’s application of the law.
The dispute arose from a deteriorating relationship between the claimant and a colleague, Ms Odu. Mr Laffy alleged that the college’s handling of grievances, including its failure to investigate a false allegation made against him, constituted direct discrimination based on his race, sex, and age. The original tribunal had previously upheld a claim for constructive unfair dismissal but dismissed the remaining discrimination claims.
Focus on the Burden of Proof
The appeal specifically challenged whether the original tribunal erred in its application of the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. Mr Laffy argued that the stark difference in how the employer handled complaints from both parties should have been sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.
In her judgment, Sarah Crowther KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, scrutinised the original findings with care. She noted that the tribunal had correctly applied established legal principles, including the approach in Madarassy v Nomura International plc. The EAT found that the original tribunal had reached factual conclusions that were entirely open to it based on the evidence presented.
Employer's Explanation Accepted
The EAT emphasised that the employer provided a non-discriminatory reason for its actions. The decision not to pursue a formal investigation into the false allegation was based on the fact that the complainant had declined to pursue the matter. The judge concluded that this was a practical management decision, which, while perhaps viewed as disappointing by the claimant, was unrelated to any protected characteristics.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, as the EAT found the tribunal’s reasoning to be well-structured, detailed, and legally sound.
Read the entire judgment here: Laffy v WKCIC Group T/A Capital City College Group and Another [2026] EAT 90
