Whistleblowing: EAT equates whistleblowing detriment claims with discrimination claims for purpose of employer's burden of proof
This report relates to 1 case(s)
Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester  IRLR 111 EAT (2 other reports)
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.
- 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.