Jones v VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd & Ors (RACE DISCRIMINATION; SEX DISCRIMINATION) [2026] EAT 24 (30 January 2026)

Jones v VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd & Ors (RACE DISCRIMINATION; SEX DISCRIMINATION) [2026] EAT 24 (30 January 2026)

The tribunal did not err in its approach to the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. It made positive findings as to the reasons for the respondents' conduct, gave due and proper consideration to the claimant's arguments regarding stereotyping and protected acts, and was entitled to conclude that there was no evidence from which it could conclude that race, sex, or protected acts had any bearing on the conduct in question. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2026] EAT 24
Parties
Appellant: Dr B Jones; Respondents: ViiV Healthcare UK Limited and Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Direct Race and Sex Discrimination and Victimisation Complaints
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Sex Discrimination Victimisation Burden of Proof 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr B Jones

Appellant

ViiV Healthcare UK Limited and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Direct Race and Sex Discrimination and Victimisation Complaints

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010 in dismissing complaints of direct race and sex discrimination and victimisation
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal failed to consider the impact of stereotyping in the use of descriptors such as 'aggressive' and 'hostile'
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal failed to consider if the claimant's protected acts contributed to the breakdown in trust and confidence leading to dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not err in its approach to the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. It made positive findings as to the reasons for the respondents' conduct, gave due and proper consideration to the claimant's arguments regarding stereotyping and protected acts, and was entitled to conclude that there was no evidence from which it could conclude that race, sex, or protected acts had any bearing on the conduct in question. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed