Dr B Jones v Viiv Healthcare UK Limited

Dr B Jones v Viiv Healthcare UK Limited

The tribunal did not err in its approach to the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. It made positive findings that the claimant's dismissal and related disciplinary actions were based on genuine concerns about her conduct and breakdown in working relationships, not because of race, sex, or protected acts. The tribunal properly considered and rejected the claimant's case on stereotyping and victimisation.

Parties
Appellant: Dr B Jones; Respondents: Viiv Healthcare UK Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Stereotyping
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Sex Discrimination Victimisation Burden of Proof Stereotyping

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr B Jones

Appellant

Viiv Healthcare UK Limited and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the employment tribunal err in its approach to the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010?
  2. 2 Was the claimant subjected to direct race and sex discrimination or victimisation, particularly through stereotyping and adverse characterisation?
  3. 3 Did the timing and nature of disciplinary investigations constitute victimisation for protected acts?

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not err in its approach to the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. It made positive findings that the claimant's dismissal and related disciplinary actions were based on genuine concerns about her conduct and breakdown in working relationships, not because of race, sex, or protected acts. The tribunal properly considered and rejected the claimant's case on stereotyping and victimisation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed