Woods v Pasab Ltd (t/a Jhoots Pharmacy and Anor)

Woods v Pasab Ltd (t/a Jhoots Pharmacy and Anor)

The appellant was dismissed because the decision-maker believed she had made a racist remark, not because she had made or was suspected of making a protected act (a complaint of discrimination). The protected act played no part, consciously or unconsciously, in the dismissal. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by attributing its own understanding of the remark to the decision-maker and failing to apply the correct legal test as set out in Khan.

Parties
Appellant: Woods; Respondent: Pasab Limited t/a Jhoots Pharmacy; Respondent: Mrs Sandip Jhooty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Direct Discrimination, Protected Act, Dismissal, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equality Law Victimisation Direct Discrimination Protected Act Dismissal Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Woods

Appellant

Pasab Limited t/a Jhoots Pharmacy

Respondent

Mrs Sandip Jhooty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was dismissed by reason of making a protected act under Regulation 4(1)(d) of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its reasoning regarding the reason for dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal was correct in overturning the Tribunal's finding of victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was dismissed because the decision-maker believed she had made a racist remark, not because she had made or was suspected of making a protected act (a complaint of discrimination). The protected act played no part, consciously or unconsciously, in the dismissal. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by attributing its own understanding of the remark to the decision-maker and failing to apply the correct legal test as set out in Khan.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed