Probationary Period Resource Pack
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read more
This case underscores the need to diligently address complaints, even in response to disciplinary actions, and emphasises the importance of proper assessment of comparators to ensure fairness in employment discrimination cases.
30 January 2024
Case Study
In a recent case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) scrutinised a matter involving a Claimant who had recently ascended to the position of Assistant General Manager at a health club operated by the Respondent.
Post-promotion, the Claimant instigated investigations against three colleagues, leading to disciplinary measures. Subsequently, these colleagues filed grievances against the Claimant, asserting bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, race, and nationality.
The Claimant found himself suspended and summoned to a disciplinary meeting concerning the alleged comments. Contesting bias in the process and asserting non-compliance with proper procedures by his colleagues, the Claimant also claimed unlawful harassment and reported a threat against him.
Following the disciplinary hearing, the Claimant faced dismissal for gross misconduct. Despite appealing the decision, the dismissal was upheld. Subsequently, the Claimant brought forth various claims against the Respondent, including a charge of race discrimination, contending that he faced disparate treatment due to his race, comparing it to the treatment to that of his colleagues.
Case Study
On the race discrimination claim, the Employment Tribunal (ET) found sufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that the Claimant had suffered direct discrimination based on his race. The ET emphasised the significance of disciplinary action resulting from an allegation against the Claimant, while a similar comment made to him had not triggered any action.
However, the EAT intervened, highlighting the failure of the ET to assess whether there were significant differences between the Claimant and his comparators, as mandated by the Equality Act 2010 for a direct discrimination claim. Specifically, the EAT noted the oversight in not considering the potential significance of the fact that the Claimant was accused of making a comment about a colleague’s race, whereas the other employee had referred to her own race in a self-directed comment. Furthermore, the EAT criticised the ET for treating the three employees as comparators without analysing material differences in their circumstances compared to the Claimant. This resulted in an incorrect shift of the burden of proof to the Respondent to disprove the discrimination allegations.
This case underscores the importance of diligently addressing all complaints and grievances, even if they appear to be responses to disciplinary actions. Moreover, when a subsequent claim is raised, it is crucial to scrutinise the comparators, ensuring they are not materially different from the individual bringing the claim. Proper assessment is essential to avoid inaccurately shifting the burden of proof and to uphold fairness and justice in employment discrimination cases.
Contact Us
For further information or advice in dealing with discrimination in the workplace, please contact our employment law specialists on 01332 226 155 or fill in the form below.
Related Services
Knowledge
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read moreAn employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read MoreThe EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read MoreEmployer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read MoreDownload expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read moreEAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read MoreEAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read MoreEAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read MoreEAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read MoreEAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read MoreTuesday
25
March
Join us for breakfast and networking, followed by our expert speaker presentation, a roundtable discussion, and a Q&A session.
Book your placeWednesday
26
March
Employment law update on family leave rights for 2026. Practical guidance, new entitlements and live Q&A for employers.
Book your placeScroll to next section
Scroll back to the top