This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Whistleblowing: EAT equates whistleblowing detriment claims with discrimination claims for purpose of employer's burden of proof

This report relates to 1 case(s)

In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester [2011] 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.

Key points

  • Where there has been a detriment following a protected act, the burden of proof is on the employer to prove, in effect, that the worker was not victimised.