law school ranking 2000
The case Webster v Brunel University [2004], was recently approved by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (" EAT "). The plaintiff, Webster, was designed by Brunel University as a help desk officer, the information and telecommunications technology support to the staff of the respondents, Brunel University. The plaintiff in the Labor Court against the defendants claim of racial discrimination.

The court dismissed their complaints. The applicant in relation to the dismissal of one of their complaints, namely that, even if they are providing advice over the phone she heard the laughter in the background and the word "Paki" was mentioned. She claimed that racial discrimination and argues that Brunel University was representative liable.

§ 54a (1) of the Race Relations Act provides:

"This section applies if a complaint is under S 54 and the complaint is that the defendant (a) has committed an act of discrimination based on race ... which is illegal (2) Where, on the hearing the complaint, the complainant proves facts from which the court could, apart from this section, the conclusion in the absence of an adequate explanation that the defendant (a) has committed such an act of discrimination against the complainant, the Court upheld the appeal unless the respondent that he did not commit that act. "

The applicant claimed the following:

After the court found that the word "Paki" was used, they erred from the obligation on the applicant to establish that adverse treatment based on race;

In addition, the court left to the obligation of the applicant to adverse treatment and look at the facts had simply decided that her case is not proven;

That the court, at least, the transfer of the burden of proof to the respondent;

That the court had concluded that it would have a discriminatory treatment of Brunel University, because the treatment was alleged by an employee of the university. When it comes to the conclusion, discriminatory treatment, the courts have a duty to the plaintiff to the defendant.

The University contended that the burden of proof could be extended to the respondent:

It was necessary for the applicant to determine whether adverse treatment by the defendant and
Only then can conclusions be drawn, that this treatment was discrimination based on sex or race.
The EAT allowed the appeal.
The EAT ruled that the burden of proof on the defendant, if the applicant has a prima facie case that a discriminatory act by the defendant.

The EAT decided that in future, courts should have the same prima facie test for all matters relating to race and sex discrimination. Especially if the treatment complained of by an applicant who amounted to sexual or racial discrimination and was an employee of the defendant.

The courts should be directly in the future saying that if the facts were on the balance of probabilities, from which the court could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation that the defendant had committed such an act, then would the court respecting the complaint unless the respondent that it is not required, the act or that the defendant was not obligated to represent the employees, had the law.

The case was sent to the country to a new court to consider:

Whether there was a prima facie case of bad treatment by the respondents of one, for which the defendant was liable as representative, and
If so, the burden of proof by the plaintiff to the defendant, whether the defendant can demonstrate that there is no disadvantage, clearly influenced by race, by the applicant, by one of its employees.

If you require further information please contact us.

E-mail: enquiries@rtcoopers.com

© RT Coopers, 2005. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.

Employment lawyers, labor law, employment lawyers, employment law firms, layoffs, layoffs Unfair, BREACH OF CONTRACT, Workplace Disputes, TUPE Transfers, Drafting Employment Contracts, complaint procedures, disciplinary procedures, maternity rights, discrimination, Employment Disputes, suspensions, wrongful dismissal, Equal Pay, Media Copyright.

For more advice by e-mail to enquiries@rtcoopers.com or visit our website at http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php