Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd (Race Discrimination) [2017] UKEAT 0203_16_1008 (10 August 2017)

Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd (Race Discrimination) [2017] UKEAT 0203_16_1008 (10 August 2017)

The Employment Tribunal misdirected itself by treating section 136 Equality Act 2010 as imposing an initial burden of proof on the claimant and by failing to properly consider evidence regarding comparators and the subjective state of mind of decision makers. The Tribunal's errors in approach to the evidence rendered its decision unsafe.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0203_16_1008
Parties
Appellant: Mr I Efobi; Respondent: Royal Mail Group Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside
Legal Topics
Direct Race Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Recruitment Discrimination, Comparators, Section 136 Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Direct Race Discrimination Burden of Proof Recruitment Discrimination Comparators 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr I Efobi

Appellant

Royal Mail Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Employment Tribunal err in law regarding the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010?
  2. 2 Did the Tribunal err in finding no evidence regarding the race of comparators?
  3. 3 Should each job application have been considered separately?

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal misdirected itself by treating section 136 Equality Act 2010 as imposing an initial burden of proof on the claimant and by failing to properly consider evidence regarding comparators and the subjective state of mind of decision makers. The Tribunal's errors in approach to the evidence rendered its decision unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside

Orders

  • Claim remitted to a different Employment Tribunal for reconsideration