In Stenning v Jarman and the London Borough of Hackney, the EAT holds that the treatment of other employees, although not actual comparators, can provide evidence of less favourable treatment as against a notional comparator in a claim for racial discrimination.
In London Borough of Ealing v Garry, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal either failed to identify anything that could truly be called a detriment to an employee who had unknowingly been the subject of a continuing investigation into suspected fraud or, if it had intended to say that her lack of awareness was a detriment, had reached a conclusion that was perverse.
While it cannot be assumed that two individuals of the same racial group will not discriminate against each other on racial grounds, the sameness is a factor that an employment tribunal may properly take into account in determining whether or not there has in fact been discrimination on racial grounds, holds the EAT in Graham v London Borough of Barnet.
In Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd v Sidhu, the Court of Appeal holds that an employer's application of its disciplinary policy of disregarding all provocation when deciding what penalty to impose, to a Sikh employee who had reacted violently to a racial attack on him, was not race-specific conduct. That could not result in a finding of less favourable treatment of the employee on racial grounds than other persons without proof of more favourable treatment of comparators in the same circumstances.
An employment tribunal misdirected itself in law by requiring an employer to provide an adequate explanation for the difference in treatment between a complainant of direct racial discrimination and his comparators, failing which an adverse inference of such discrimination would automatically follow, holds the EAT in British Broadcasting Corporation and another v Jiad.
An employment tribunal failed to meet the minimum requirements for a reasoned decision in finding that an employer had unlawfully discriminated against two employees on racial grounds, holds the EAT in Cromwell Hospital v Francis and another.
In Effa v Alexandra Healthcare NHS Trust and another, the Court of Appeal holds that it was not possible to infer from an employment tribunal's findings of primary fact that, by summarily terminating the appointment of a black locum, an NHS trust treated him less favourably than a hypothetical white locum on racial grounds.
An employment tribunal was entitled to find that a derogatory remark was made to a black, Rastafarian contract worker by a white security officer employed by the principal, and that the expression "you lot" that he used referred specifically to the contract worker's race, holds the EAT in Tesco Stores Ltd and another v Wilson.
A married man who applied for a job in Madrid was not unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of his marital status when the employer, on hearing that he intended to commute weekly between London and Madrid, decided not to appoint him, holds the EAT in Bloomberg Financial Markets v Cumandala.
An employment tribunal erred in failing to take account of losses incurred by an employee after she embarked on a full-time university course in calculating her compensation for future loss of earnings, holds the EAT in Khanum v IBC Vehicles Ltd.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct race discrimination.