Addendum Sophie Buckley, principal legal officer at the EOC, has asked me to point out that the EAT's decision in Oyarce v Cheshire County Council only applies to victimisation on grounds of race (not sex or other forms of prohibited discrimination, where the statutory wording is different).
A corrected version of the bulletin appears below.
Victimisation: Burden of Proof
The EAT has confirmed "with some degree of hesitation and disquiet" (para. 38) that the reversed burden of proof in race discrimination claims does not apply to allegations of victimisation.
It held that a close examination of s54A of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Equal Treatment Directive 2000 shows an intention to treat victimisation separately from direct and indirect discrimination. The reversal of the burden of proof, whilst applying to direct and indirect discrimination, does not apply to victimisation.
Oyarce v Cheshire County Council
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This archive is no longer updated. Visit http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk/site/blog/employment-blog/ for the updated archive.
This archive contains Daniel Barnett's employment law email bulletins which are posted when an email bulletin is sent out. To receive these bulletins by email you can subscribe for free.
Over 28,000 people, including solicitors, barristers, HR professionals and employment tribunal judges, receive these bulletins.
Daniel Barnett is a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, with over 15 years' experience defending companies facing employment tribunal claims and associated commercial disputes. He is listed as a leading employment barrister in the ‘Legal 500′, and described in the Times Law Supplement as having “carved out a strong reputation”.
Daniel regularly advises and represents large and small businesses in discrimination claims, TUPE problems, team moves, removal of confidential business information, and unfair dismissal disputes. He has been appointed as employment law advisor to Acas since 2004, and is the author or co-author of seven legal textbooks.
--> http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk/
Search this archive
To search, please use the search box in the top-left corner of the screen.
Over 28,000 people, including solicitors, barristers, HR professionals and employment tribunal judges, receive these bulletins.
Daniel Barnett is a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, with over 15 years' experience defending companies facing employment tribunal claims and associated commercial disputes. He is listed as a leading employment barrister in the ‘Legal 500′, and described in the Times Law Supplement as having “carved out a strong reputation”.
Daniel regularly advises and represents large and small businesses in discrimination claims, TUPE problems, team moves, removal of confidential business information, and unfair dismissal disputes. He has been appointed as employment law advisor to Acas since 2004, and is the author or co-author of seven legal textbooks.
--> http://www.danielbarnett.co.uk/
Search this archive
To search, please use the search box in the top-left corner of the screen.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(131)
-
▼
July
(19)
- GMB v Allen - EAT overturns decision
- Illegality
- Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
- Failure to Inform and Consult
- Dyslexic Policeman is disabled
- Part-time tribunal chairman not 'worker'
- Addendum
- Victimisation: Burden of Proof
- Equal Pay - Material Factor Defence
- Boring but important
- PILON clauses
- PILON Clauses
- RIP Wigs and Bands
- Collective Redundancy Consultation
- Weirdest Employment Disputes
- Equal Pay
- Unfair Dismissal, Age Discrimination and Article 119
- Commercial Agents
- EAT Scotland
-
▼
July
(19)
No comments:
Post a Comment