Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd (Race Discrimination: Direct) [2015] UKEAT 0186_15_2010 (20 October 2015)

Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd (Race Discrimination: Direct) [2015] UKEAT 0186_15_2010 (20 October 2015)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the instruction not to speak Russian was not because of the Claimant's race or national origins but due to reasonable concerns about her conduct in the context of the Respondent's business risks. The same instruction would have been given to any employee in similar circumstances, and the Respondent provided a non-discriminatory explanation. The Tribunal's findings on both direct discrimination and harassment were permissible and supported by evidence.

Citation
[2015] UKEAT 0186_15_2010
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mrs Anna Kelly; Respondent's Counsel: Mr Martin Palmer
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Race Discrimination, Harassment, Equality Act 2010, Comparators, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equality Law Direct Race Discrimination Harassment Equality Act 2010 Comparators 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Anna Kelly

Appellant/claimant

Mr Martin Palmer

Respondent's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in dismissing claims of direct race (national origins) discrimination and/or harassment related to an instruction not to speak Russian in the workplace.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the instruction not to speak Russian was not because of the Claimant's race or national origins but due to reasonable concerns about her conduct in the context of the Respondent's business risks. The same instruction would have been given to any employee in similar circumstances, and the Respondent provided a non-discriminatory explanation. The Tribunal's findings on both direct discrimination and harassment were permissible and supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed