1/ Jaleel v Southend Uni Hospital: EAT provides useful reminder of how the shifting of the burden of proof operates under s.136 EqA both for direct discrimination claims & for harassment claims.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e12e0d…
#ukemplaw
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e12e0d…
#ukemplaw
2/ The case concerns a consultant who was also Director of Medical Education, went sick, raised a grievance against her line manager, refused to return to the DME role until the grievance was heard, & wasn't happy the manager was on the panel when she applied for a new DME term.
3/ The point of use in this decision is the EAT's consideration of the shift of the burden of proof under s.136 EqA, paras 34-41.
4/ Perhaps most useful is contextualisation of the Madarassy 'something more' point as not being a rule of law but a response to a submission that the burden is shifted merely by a difference in status & in treatment. 
5/ The EAT also reiterates the circumstances in which account can be taken of the employer's explanation at the 1st stage of the s.136 process, rather than ignoring it entirely at that stage.
6/ Finally, given that J said if there's a finding of unwanted conduct the burden under a s.26 harassment claim shifts, the EAT made clear that that's not enough & that there's also the need to make out a prima facie case on relationship to the protected characteristic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
