Field v Steve Pye [2022] IRLR 948

If evidence suggests possible discrimination, an employment tribunal must carefully consider the burden of proof, and not simply proceed directly to the primary reason for the alleged discriminatory act.

The widely cited Hewage v Grampian Health Board principle, stating that the burden of proof has limited applicability in many cases, has nuances. The tribunal must address any evidence suggesting discrimination before delving into the main reason for the alleged act.

The Igen two-stage analysis is fundamental in discrimination cases. The first stage determines if there's evidence pointing towards discrimination, and the second evaluates if the employer has provided a non-discriminatory reason for the alleged act.

Facts & Application of the law

The claimant, an accounts assistant at an accountancy practice, was disabled with conditions including arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome. After requesting to work from home due to her disability and being refused, followed by a period of absence, the company raised performance concerns. Despite the claimant's later formal request for reasonable adjustments and grievances concerning her treatment, she eventually resigned.

Subsequently, she launched proceedings claiming discrimination due to her disability. The employment tribunal, however, ruled against her. The claimant appealed, pointing to certain pieces of evidence and comments by the company secretary, Mrs Pye, which suggested potential bias and discrimination.

The EAT, upon review, found that the employment tribunal overlooked this evidence, which hinted at discrimination. They failed to apply the two-stage Igen analysis correctly, a fundamental error leading to an unsafe determination.

For individuals contemplating an appeal from the employment tribunal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, especially in cases related to discrimination, this judgment underscores the significance of the burden of proof and the importance of the tribunal thoroughly evaluating all evidence before reaching a conclusion.

Previous
Previous

Richards v Waterfield Homes [2023] IRLR 144

Next
Next

Phipps v Priory Education Services [2022] All ER (D) 09 (Oct)