EB v BA [2006] EWCA Civ 132 (22 February 2006)

EB v BA [2006] EWCA Civ 132 (22 February 2006)

The Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by failing to shift the burden to the respondent for the entire relevant period post-transition and by not requiring the respondent to justify the allocation of work and redundancy selection. The respondent's failure to provide adequate documentation and disclosure deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to challenge the reasons for non-allocation and redundancy. The Tribunal's focus on the appellant's evidence, rather than the respondent's justification, was inconsistent with the statutory burden-shifting framework.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 132
Parties
Appellant: EB; Respondent: BA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Gender Reassignment, Burden of Proof, Redundancy, Disclosure of Documents
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment Burden of Proof Redundancy Disclosure of Documents

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EB

Appellant

BA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in relation to alleged discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment in work allocation and redundancy.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the burden of proof to show no discrimination in allocation of work and redundancy selection.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing due to inadequate disclosure and lack of documentation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by failing to shift the burden to the respondent for the entire relevant period post-transition and by not requiring the respondent to justify the allocation of work and redundancy selection. The respondent's failure to provide adequate documentation and disclosure deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to challenge the reasons for non-allocation and redundancy. The Tribunal's focus on the appellant's evidence, rather than the respondent's justification, was inconsistent with the statutory burden-shifting framework.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The case is remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the proper approach to the burden of proof and disclosure obligations.