Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester  IRLR 111 EAT
Reports relating to this case:
Whistleblowing: EAT equates whistleblowing detriment claims with discrimination claims for purpose of employer's burden of proof
- 25 October 2011
In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester  IRLR 111 EAT, the EAT held that, where a worker has suffered a detriment following a protected disclosure, the employer must prove that its act or deliberate failure to act was “in no sense whatever” on the grounds that the employee had done the protected act.
- 21 April 2011
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, where an employee has made a protected disclosure and suffered a detriment, the employer must prove that the detriment was "in no sense whatsoever" on the ground of the protected disclosure.
- 19 January 2011
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers whistleblowing.