Saroy v Post Office [2001] UKEAT 826_96_2501 (25 January 2001)
The Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-racial explanations for the appellant's less favourable treatment in allocation of acting duties, found no evidence or inference of racial discrimination, and correctly applied the legal principles regarding proof and inference of discrimination under the Race Relations Act...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] UKEAT 826_96_2501
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Sohan Saroy; Respondent: The Post Office
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Race Discrimination, Promotion Procedures, Burden of Proof, Inference of Discrimination
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Sohan Saroy
Appellant
The Post Office
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of race in the allocation of acting duties and opportunities for promotion
- 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal misapplied the law regarding the need to prove conscious racial motivation
- 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test for inferring discrimination
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal accepted the respondent's non-racial explanations for the appellant's less favourable treatment in allocation of acting duties, found no evidence or inference of racial discrimination, and correctly applied the legal principles regarding proof and inference of discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
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