This case concerned a claimant who was made redundant and subsequently brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex and race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, held that the Unfair Dismissal claim was successful because the respondent had failed to tell the claimant about the sub-criteria during the discussions prior to her being made redundant.

However they reduced her award to zero following the Polkey decision. They rejected a claim for sex discrimination. The claimant had argued that one of the reasons she had been made redundant was because of her lateness to work, which had been caused by reason of her childcare commitments as a single mother. They found in favour of the claimant on the issue of race discrimination, where the claimant had been told not to appeal in her own tongue which was Polish.

The claimant appealed against the Polkey deduction and the sex discrimination decision and the respondent cross-appealed against the unfair dismissal and race discrimination decisions. The Employment Appeals Tribunal rejected all the appeals. Detailed challenges were made to the operation of the redundancy procedure. The EAT held that regard should be had to the judgment of the Tribunal taken overall and in context, and this was clear. Thus both appeal and cross appeal as to a finding of Unfair Dismissal and zero compensation (applying Polkey) were rejected.

The sex discrimination decision was rejected since no detriment could be shown in consequence: this decision was not perverse. An appeal against a finding of race discrimination was also rejected. The act which was held discriminatory was that the claimant was told not to appeal “in her own tongue” in a cosmopolitan office, when no one else was so instructed, they being (generally) of other nationalities. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to regard this as so potentially inherently and directly discriminatory as to cause the burden of proof to shift. Having no explanation from the employer, it was entitled to find discrimination established.

Read the full decision here:
http://bit.ly/HzpRYX