Kemp Little
  • Looking for someone?
  • Email us
  • Search
MENU MENU
Insights overview

Employment · 8 November 2019 · Louisa Button

Employment case update | Burden of proof in discrimination claims

Two recent cases, Base Childrenswear v Otshudi and Raj v Capita Business Services, considered the rules regarding the burden of proof in claims brought under… Read more

more content below

Two recent cases, Base Childrenswear v Otshudi and Raj v Capita Business Services, considered the rules regarding the burden of proof in claims brought under the Equality Act 2010.

By way of reminder, typically, a two-stage approach to the burden of proof applies:

  • Stage 1 – can the Claimant establish a prima facie case of discrimination? If not, the claim fails at this hurdle.  If it can, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show the reason for the discriminatory treatment.
  • Stage 2 – is the Respondent’s explanation sufficient to show that it did not discriminate against the Claimant?

However, in some cases, there may be good reason for the Tribunal to depart from this approach, for example, where the basic facts are not in dispute, a Tribunal may consider whether the Respondent is able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they did not commit the unlawful act.

In the recent Court of Appeal case of Base Childrenswear v Otshudi, Miss Otshudi was dismissed from Base Childrenswear, as her line manager suspected her of stealing. However, Base Childrenswear told Miss Ostshudi her termination was by reason of redundancy.  Miss Otshudi believed she had been dismissed because of her race and submitted a grievance and appealed against her dismissal.  Base Childrenswear chose not to respond to either.

Miss Otshudi proceeded to bring a racial harassment claim. Shortly before the hearing, Base Childrenswear changed their case and confirmed that Miss Otshudi was dismissed because her line manager believed she was stealing or about to steal some stock (although this had not been raised with her).  Base Childrenswear said the redundancy reason was simply used to “minimise the potential confrontation” but confirmed that Miss Osthudi’s dismissal had nothing to do with her race. The Tribunal did not accept the employer’s version of events and held that Miss Otshudi’s dismissal was an act of racial harassment.  In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the burden of proof had shifted to Base Childrenswear because Miss Osthudi had shown that there were facts from which the Tribunal could conclude, in the absence of any other explanation, that her dismissal was because of her race. The fact that Base Childrenswear had waited some 15 or so months after Miss Osthudi’s termination before putting forward the true reason for her dismissal helped to establish this prima facie case.  Turning to stage two, the Tribunal rejected Base Childrenswear’s argument that Miss Otshudi’s dismissal had nothing to do with her race, due to their being very weak evidence to support the suspected theft and that they had not questioned Miss Otshudi about it.

The EAT dismissed Base Childrenswear’s appeal, and Base Childrenswear appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected this further appeal, holding that the Tribunal was entitled to infer that there was a racial element to the dismissal, given Base Childrenswear’s attempted cover-up. The limited evidence or investigation entitled the Tribunal to conclude that while Miss Otshundi’s line manager’s view about the theft may have been genuinely held, it was made on the basis of stereotypical assumptions that black Africans are likely to steal.

This case emphasises to employers the potential cost of dishonesty, even if well-intended.  While this will not automatically shift the burden of proof, it is clear that the Tribunal took a fairly dim view of the misrepresentation of the dismissal grounds.  Had Base Childrenwear been able to properly evidence the reason for their decision from the outset, the outcome would have been very different.

In Raj v Capita Business Services, the Claimant was terminated during his probation period on performance grounds.  He proceeded to bring a claim for sexual harassment and/or harassment related to sex, amongst other things, in relation to the treatment he had received from his female line manager.  Mr Raj claimed that his manager had massaged his shoulders, neck and back on two or three occasions. The Tribunal held that while the conduct was unwanted and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, the claim failed because the conduct was not sexual in nature. The Tribunal considered that the conduct related to a “gender neutral” part of the body and it was also relevant that the massages took place in an open plan office. The Tribunal concluded that the manager’s actions were the result of “misguided encouragement” and there was no evidence of the manager acting in this way with anyone else, either male or female.

Mr Raj appealed on he ground that the Tribunal had failed to properly apply the rules for shifting the burden of proof.

The EAT held that the Tribunal’s approach was correct. The Tribunal had correctly asked whether there were facts from which they could conclude that the unwanted conduct related to Mr Raj’s sex. The Tribunal had determined there were not and therefore the prima facie case (Stage 1) was not satisfied. As such, the burden of proof did not shift to Capita Business Services.

The decision in this case turns entirely on the facts and while Mr Raj’s claim did not succeed, a similar claim with a slightly different set of circumstances may well have done. This case also invites the question as to whether the Tribunal would have reached a different conclusion had it been a male manger and a female employee. Either way, we would advise you to make sure your managers are provided with sufficient training as to what is deemed acceptable conduct and to ensure any harassment policy you have in place is up to date.

  • Share this blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Louisa ButtonLouisa Button is an employment associate

Get in touch

View the team

Sign up for our newsletters

  • Share this Blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Other stuff you might like

  1. Conservatives pledge NHS visas to address staffing fears
  2. Employment case update | Burden of proof in discrimination claims
  3. Employment case update | Protected conversations: they’re inadmissible, right?
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
close
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
Kemp Little

Lawyers
and thought leaders who are passionate about technology

Expand footer

Kemp Little

138 Cheapside
City of London
EC2V 6BJ

020 7600 8080

hello@kemplittle.com

Services

  • Commercial technology
  • Consulting
  • Disputes
  • Intellectual property
  • Employment
  • Immigration

 

  • Sourcing
  • Corporate
  • Data protection & privacy
  • Financial regulation
  • Private equity & venture capital
  • Tax

Sitemap

  • Our people
  • Insights
  • Events
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Cookies
  • Privacy
  • Terms of use
  • Compliants
  • Debt recovery charges

Follow us

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters

Kemp Little LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC300242) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office is 138 Cheapside, London EC2V 6BJ. The SRA Standards and Regulations can be accessed by clicking here.

  • Cyber Essentials logo
  • Tech Nation logo
  • LORCA logo
  • ABTA Partner+ logo
  • Make Your Ask logo
  • FT Innovative Lawyers 2019 winners logo
  • Law Society Excellence Awards shortlisted
  • Legal Business Awards = highly commended
  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
  • Insights
  • Quick reads
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • LORCA
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
close
close
close

Send us a message

Fill in your details and we'll be in touch soon

close

Sign up for our newsletter

I would like to receive updates and related news from Kemp Little *

Please select from the areas of interest below.

Themes

Services

Please select below any publications that you would like to receive:

Newsletters

close

Register for future event information

close
close
Looking for someone?
Generic filters
Exact matches only

Can't remember their name? View everyone

  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
  • Insights
  • Quick reads
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • LORCA
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn