Thread by @JasonBraier

1/ CAB v Mefful: EAT finds ET erred in considering post-dismissal events in deciding reason for dismissal, in applying a s.15 causation to a s.13 EqA claim, & finding s.103A satisfied by non-principal reasons for dismissal amongst other errors.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61eaa2db…
#ukemplaw

2/ This is the 4th time this matter has reached the EAT. It relates to M's redundancy dismissal, where the ET found no redundancy as M's role was in fact the same as a business manager role in the new structure. The ET found M dismissed due to capability & lack of engagement.

3/ The ET found M disabled due to hearing & shoulder impairments & that these had a significant influence on the decision to dismiss him. It also found M had done a protected act & made a PID by raising a grievance re sexual harassment by the CEO (with whom M had a relationship)

4/ The ET found M's disability significantly influenced his dismissal, upholding s.13 & s.15 claims. It found the burden of proof shifted because M wasn't allowed to undertake a trial in the business manager role when the CAB conceded he should have been.

5/ The ET held that this failure resulted from a perception of M having failed to engage when off sick as a result of his disability & that this sufficed to shift the burden of proof on the s.13 & s.15 claims, with the CAB failing to show non-discrim reasons for the treatment.

6/ The ET also found a reason for dismissing M was to avoid dealing with the grievance & hence the victimisation claim was made out as well.