Naeem v The Secretary Of State For Justice (Race Discrimination : Indirect) [2014] UKEAT 0215_13_1501 (15 January 2014)

Naeem v The Secretary Of State For Justice (Race Discrimination : Indirect) [2014] UKEAT 0215_13_1501 (15 January 2014)

The Tribunal erred in law by including pre-2002 chaplains in the comparator pool, as their circumstances were materially different; only chaplains employed since 2002 should be compared. When the correct pool is used, there is no indirect discrimination as the claimant was treated the same as any chaplain appointed at the same time. Even though the Tribunal erred in its justification analysis, the cross-appeal is determinative and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0215_13_1501
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mohammed Naeem; Respondent/employer: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; claims remain dismissed.
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Pay Scales, Comparators, Justification Defence
Employment Law Equality Law Indirect Discrimination Race Discrimination Religion or Belief Discrimination Pay Scales Comparators Justification Defence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Naeem

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for Justice

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pay progression system for prison chaplains constituted indirect discrimination on grounds of race and/or religion or belief under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in defining the appropriate comparator pool for assessing indirect discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the employer's pay system was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by including pre-2002 chaplains in the comparator pool, as their circumstances were materially different; only chaplains employed since 2002 should be compared. When the correct pool is used, there is no indirect discrimination as the claimant was treated the same as any chaplain appointed at the same time. Even though the Tribunal erred in its justification analysis, the cross-appeal is determinative and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; claims remain dismissed.

Orders

  • The cross-appeal is allowed; the appeal is dismissed; the claimant's claims of indirect discrimination remain dismissed.