EB v BA

EB v BA

The Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by failing to require the respondent to justify the allocation of only three projects to the appellant out of over 200 during the relevant period, and by not addressing the lack of disclosure and documentation. The appellant was denied the protection of section 63A and a fair hearing. The findings on discrimination and redundancy cannot stand and must be remitted to a new tribunal for reconsideration.

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; findings of Employment Tribunal on discrimination and redundancy set aside; case remitted to a new tribunal for rehearing.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Gender Reassignment, Burden of Proof, Redundancy
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment Burden of Proof Redundancy

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 8
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 a claim of discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was unlawfully discriminated against in allocation of work and selection for redundancy following gender reassignment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discharged the burden of proof to show no discrimination.

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 require the respondent to justify the allocation of only three projects to the appellant out of over 200 during the relevant period, and by not addressing the lack of disclosure and documentation. The appellant was denied the protection of section 63A and a fair hearing. The findings on discrimination and redundancy cannot stand and must be remitted to a new tribunal for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings of Employment Tribunal on discrimination and redundancy set aside; case remitted to a new tribunal for rehearing.

Orders

  • Complaint of discrimination remitted to a new tribunal for a fresh hearing.
  • Issue of redundancy remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration.