Kumar v DHL Services Ltd [2017] UKEAT 0117_17_0809 (8 September 2017)

Kumar v DHL Services Ltd [2017] UKEAT 0117_17_0809 (8 September 2017)

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law by importing the first stage test into its scrutiny of the Respondent's explanation, subjected the Respondent's case to the appropriate level of scrutiny, and provided adequate reasoning. The Tribunal was entitled to accept the Respondent's explanation that the decision not to appoint the Claimant was not motivated by race, and the Respondent discharged the burden of proof under section 136(3) Equality Act 2010.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0117_17_0809
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Raj Kumar; Respondent: DHL
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Race Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Section 136 Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Direct Race Discrimination Burden of Proof Section 136 Equality Act 2010

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Kumar

Appellant/claimant

DHL

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal wrongly imported the first stage test into its scrutiny of the Respondent's explanation at the second stage under section 136 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal subjected the Respondent's explanation to the correct level of scrutiny
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal adequately explained its reasoning

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law by importing the first stage test into its scrutiny of the Respondent's explanation, subjected the Respondent's case to the appropriate level of scrutiny, and provided adequate reasoning. The Tribunal was entitled to accept the Respondent's explanation that the decision not to appoint the Claimant was not motivated by race, and the Respondent discharged the burden of proof under section 136(3) Equality Act 2010.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed