Ihekwoaba v Aston Services Group Ltd (Sex Discrimination : Race Discrimination) [2021] UKEAT 0270_19_1103 (11 March 2021)

Ihekwoaba v Aston Services Group Ltd (Sex Discrimination : Race Discrimination) [2021] UKEAT 0270_19_1103 (11 March 2021)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to address a specific incident of alleged harassment involving both race and sex, as set out in the claimant's witness statement and within the scope of the pleaded case. The Tribunal should have explored and adjudicated this allegation fairly, given the claimant was a litigant in person and particulars were not ordered. The Tribunal's approach to the burden of proof was not materially erroneous except insofar as it failed to consider the implications of the alleged racial remark if found proven. The findings on victimisation and the disciplinary process were not perverse or unsupported by the evidence, and there was no error in not considering a...

Citation
[2021] UKEAT 0270_19_1103
Parties
Appellant's Counsel: Miss Laura Prince; Respondents' Solicitor: Mr Richard Morton
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Partial success for the appellant; case remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration of the specific incident.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Case Management, Remittal
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Race Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Burden of Proof Case Management +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Laura Prince

Appellant's Counsel

Mr Richard Morton

Respondents' Solicitor

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred by failing to address a specific incident of alleged harassment involving a racial and sexual remark and touching.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010.
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's findings on victimisation and the reasons for dismissal were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to address a specific incident of alleged harassment involving both race and sex, as set out in the claimant's witness statement and within the scope of the pleaded case. The Tribunal should have explored and adjudicated this allegation fairly, given the claimant was a litigant in person and particulars were not ordered. The Tribunal's approach to the burden of proof was not materially erroneous except insofar as it failed to consider the implications of the alleged racial remark if found proven. The findings on victimisation and the disciplinary process were not perverse or unsupported by the evidence, and there was no error in not considering a...

Court Disposition

Partial success for the appellant; case remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration of the specific incident.

Orders

  • Remit to the same Employment Tribunal to consider and determine whether the alleged incident involving touching the claimant's neck and the 'white girls from Poland' remark occurred, and whether it amounted to harassment related to both race and sex.
  • If the Tribunal finds the incident occurred, it must consider whether this affects the findings on the other incidents of harassment.