England and Wales Case Law

London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v I Sodola (Debarred)

The primary facts found by the Employment Tribunal could not logically support an inference that the delay in providing feedback was because of the claimant's race. The Tribunal took into account irrelevant factors, and the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent. The appeal is allowed and the finding of discrimination is set aside.

Source excerpt

• Race discrimination
• Burden of proof
• Direct discrimination
• Section 136 equality act 2010
• Employment promotion
• Feedback delay

Read case analysis

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

The respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award under EAT Rules; the appeal's success alone is not sufficient reason to award costs.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Race discrimination
• Breach of contract
• Victimisation
• Harassment

Read case analysis

M Nowak v Evtec Aluminium Ltd

The EAT dismissed Mr Nowak’s appeal against rejection of race discrimination and victimisation claims, and found no live Working Time Regulations complaint.

• Race discrimination
• Victimisation
• Direct discrimination
• Working time regulations
• Burden of proof
• Detriment

Read case analysis

R Tapping v Peterborough City Council

The Employment Tribunal upheld two race-harassment complaints by Ms R Tapping and dismissed the remainder of her discrimination and victimisation claims.

• Race discrimination
• Harassment
• Victimisation
• Probationary dismissal
• Protected acts
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Dr B Jones v Viiv Healthcare UK Limited

The EAT dismissed Dr Jones’s appeal, holding the tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof and made positive findings that dismissal was based on conduct concerns, not race, sex, or protected acts.

• Race discrimination
• Sex discrimination
• Victimisation
• Burden of proof
• Stereotyping
• Burden-of-proof

Read case analysis

U Prasad v Epsom & St Helier Hospital NHS Trust & Anor

The EAT dismissed an appeal against a £20,000 costs order, holding that the tribunal had correctly applied rule 76, given adequate reasons, and could proceed in the claimant’s absence.

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Race discrimination
• Sex discrimination
• Victimisation
• Costs orders

Read case analysis

U Prasad v Epsom & St Helier Hospital NHS Trust & Anor

The EAT dismissed an appeal against strike out, holding that Claim 6 was objectively pleaded only against Ms Totterdell, not the Trust.

• Whistleblowing
• Protected disclosures
• Race discrimination
• Sex discrimination
• Victimisation
• Case management

Read case analysis

M Anea v OCS UK & I Limited & Ors

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging the tribunal’s credibility assessment, holding there was no inflexible rule or error of law.

• Credibility assessment
• Sexual harassment
• Constructive dismissal
• Race discrimination
• Appeal procedure
• Employment-law

Read case analysis

Oluwafunto Dada v The Scottish Ministers

The EAT held that the tribunal misapplied the just and equitable time-extension test in a race discrimination claim and remitted the case to the original tribunal.

• Race discrimination
• Limitation period
• Just and equitable extension
• Amendment of claim
• Race-discrimination
• Employment-tribunal

Read case analysis

F Djalo v Secretary of State for Justice

Section 41 Equality Act 2010 does not permit a contract worker to bring a race discrimination claim against a principal regarding pay disparity with directly employed staff, even where the principal has a contractual power to uplift pay; the claim concerns rights under the employer-worker contract, not the principal-worker relationship. The single source principle does not apply in this context. The claim does not meet the requirements for indirect discrimination under section 19 EqA. Article 14 ECHR does not require a different interpretation, as there is no relevant mismatch and the circums…

Source excerpt

• Indirect discrimination
• Contract workers
• Race discrimination
• Equal pay
• Single source principle
• Article 14 echr

Read case analysis