Sawyers v Birmingham City Council [1998] UKEAT 754_98_0110 (1 October 1998)
The Tribunal applied the correct legal test for racial discrimination by requiring evidence that less favourable treatment was racially motivated, and not merely that favourable treatment of another race resulted in disadvantage to the applicant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] UKEAT 754_98_0110
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Sawyers; Respondent: Birmingham City Council
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 01 October 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed in respect of the legal test for discrimination; appeal to proceed to full hearing on evidential ground.
- Legal Topics
- Racial Discrimination, Shortlisting for Employment, Burden of Proof
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Sawyers
Appellant
Birmingham City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for racial discrimination in shortlisting for employment
- 2 Whether less favourable treatment was racially motivated
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal applied the correct legal test for racial discrimination by requiring evidence that less favourable treatment was racially motivated, and not merely that favourable treatment of another race resulted in disadvantage to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed in respect of the legal test for discrimination; appeal to proceed to full hearing on evidential ground.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed on legal test ground
- Appeal to proceed to full hearing on evidential ground; Chairman to provide notes of the relevant passage of evidence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment