Rooproy v. Rollins-Elliott & Anor [2001] UKEAT 1486_99_0607 (6 July 2001)

Rooproy v. Rollins-Elliott & Anor [2001] UKEAT 1486_99_0607 (6 July 2001)

The Tribunal misdirected itself by focusing on the respondents' motivation rather than the causal link between the appellant's protected act (bringing tribunal proceedings) and the less favourable treatment (reference). The correct test is whether the less favourable treatment was by reason of the protected act, not whether there was a desire to victimise. On the facts, the appellant was treated less favourably because she had brought proceedings, constituting unlawful victimisation.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 1486_99_0607
Parties
Appellant: Mrs Jasbeer Rooproy; First Respondent: Mrs Rollins-Elliott; Second Respondent: Manor House Hospitals Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; finding of unlawful victimisation substituted; case remitted for remedy determination.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Racial Discrimination, Employment References, Remedies
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Racial Discrimination Employment References Remedies

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jasbeer Rooproy

Appellant

Mrs Rollins-Elliott

First Respondent

Manor House Hospitals Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was subjected to less favourable treatment amounting to victimisation under Section 2 Race Relations Act 1976 due to her prior tribunal proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal misdirected itself on the correct legal test for victimisation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal misdirected itself by focusing on the respondents' motivation rather than the causal link between the appellant's protected act (bringing tribunal proceedings) and the less favourable treatment (reference). The correct test is whether the less favourable treatment was by reason of the protected act, not whether there was a desire to victimise. On the facts, the appellant was treated less favourably because she had brought proceedings, constituting unlawful victimisation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; finding of unlawful victimisation substituted; case remitted for remedy determination.

Orders

  • Set aside the Employment Tribunal's decision rejecting the appellant's claim for victimisation.
  • Substitute a finding that both respondents unlawfully discriminated against the appellant by way of victimisation.