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
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment