J Edwards v Unite the Union & Ors

J Edwards v Unite the Union & Ors

The Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under s.136 EqA 2010 by considering explanations at the first stage and failing to draw inferences from established facts. The Tribunal also erred in finding the email of 9 October 2017 was not a protected act; it amounted to an implied allegation of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Mr J Edwards; Respondent: Unite the Union; Respondent: Ms J Formby; Respondent: Ms G Cartmail; Respondent: Mr L McCluskey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment and Disposal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; findings substituted
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Disability Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Protected Act, Trade Union Rights
Employment Law Equality Law Victimisation Disability Discrimination Burden of Proof Protected Act Trade Union Rights

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr J Edwards

Appellant

Unite the Union

Respondent

Ms J Formby

Respondent

Ms G Cartmail

Respondent

Mr L McCluskey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment and Disposal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its application of section 136 Equality Act 2010 regarding burden of proof for victimisation
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Claimant’s email of 9 October 2017 was not a protected act for purposes of victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under s.136 EqA 2010 by considering explanations at the first stage and failing to draw inferences from established facts. The Tribunal also erred in finding the email of 9 October 2017 was not a protected act; it amounted to an implied allegation of disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; findings substituted

Orders

  • Substitute finding that victimisation occurred and burden of proof shifted to Respondent, who failed to discharge it.
  • Substitute finding that the email of 9 October 2017 was a protected act for purposes of EqA 2010 and conduct under TULR(C)A 1992.