Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The case of Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust v Browne concerns the inference of discrimination in a case of direct race discrimination and victimisation, and the burden of proof in cases of discrimination. Although this case was advanced under the ‘old’ legislation (the Race Relations Act 1976) it provides a useful examination of when inferences of discrimination can be shown, and the burden of proof in discrimination in cases under the new legislation (the Equality Act 2010) as well.

In the case of Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS v Browne the Claimant was subjected to an investigation on the grounds of misconduct and capability. The Claimant was a Divisional Director of the Respondent, responsible for financial affairs. Two other Divisional Directors (both of whom were white British) were also investigated. They were not told that their position was untenable and were not told that their jobs were in jeopardy. Further, they were not subjected to the capability procedure. The Claimant was told this told that his position was untenable, that he may lose his job, and he was subjected to the capability procedure.

The Claimant subsequently submitted a claim for direct race discrimination and victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 (as well as for unfair dismissal). The Claimant succeeded on all three counts at the original Employment Tribunal. It was found that the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust’s disciplinary procedure was insufficient and was in fact a sham. As a result of this, it was determined that the Respondent did not have a genuine and honest belief in the Claimant’s guilt. The Claimant had therefore been unfairly dismissed. Further, the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant and subsequently victimised him as a result of the Employment Tribunal proceedings.

The Respondent appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision on three grounds relating to the discrimination and victimisation, but did not appeal the unfair dismissal element. The grounds of the appeal were as follows:

  1. There was a failure to construct a true hypothetical comparator; and
  2. There was a failure to attribute the cause of the differential treatment afforded to the Claimant to discrimination rather than any other cause; and
  3. There were insufficient grounds to support a finding of victimisation.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected all three grounds of the appeal.

On the first ground, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Employment Tribunal had correctly constructed a hypothetical comparator by asking the following questions:

  1. What would the attributes of a comparator be?
  2. Would such a comparator have been treated differently (to the Claimant)?
  3. Was that difference in treatment attributable to discrimination?

The original ET had constructed a hypothetical white comparator and concluded that such an employee would have been treated differently to the Claimant on the grounds of his race. Important evidence on this point was a combination of, firstly, the difference in the way in which the white Divisional Directors were treated, secondly, the statistical evidence that the Claimant put in front of the Tribunal relating to the disproportionate number of Afro-Caribbean employees that were dismissed in relation to the number employed and, thirdly, the unreasonable treatment of the Claimant. The ET was therefore entitled to draw the inference of discrimination on the primary facts.

On the second ground, the Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust stated that the ET had failed to take into account non-discriminatory reasons for the Claimant’s treatment. Again, the way in which the Claimant was treated by the Respondent, the differential treatment afforded to the white Divisional Directors, the summary rejection of the Claimant’s grievances, and the ‘worrying’ statistics (as well as some ‘dodgy’ evidence given by the Respondent’s witnesses) entitled the ET to draw the inference of discrimination on the primary facts.

On the third ground, the Employment Appeals Tribunal rejected the Respondent’s arguments on the same grounds as above – there were sufficient primary facts from which the ET was entitled to draw an inference of discrimination.

The important point to make here is that (addressing the current law) the Claimant simply has to make a prima facie case for discrimination on the primary facts. It is then the Respondent’s responsibility to produce evidence to refute discrimination as the reason. It is therefore very important that any and all evidence is gathered and that grievances are submitted. A simple equation is that the more (credible) evidence that is gathered of discrimination, the more likely that an Employment Tribunal claim will be successful.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.63 Average

30 Reviews

Anonymous

Immediate response to my initial enquiry. Very clear throughout the whole process and thorough and great communication which worked really well during quite a stressful time. Chris Hadrill was extremely helpful and made me feel at ease.

Posted 1 month ago

Nick D

I received a very professional service from Chris. The advice given really helped to leave me comfortable to sign the settlement agreement following my redundancy. Would be happy to recommend your services to others.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent service from initial contact to deliverables.

Posted 2 months ago

Virginia K

Yes, Chris Hadrill answered all my questions and I feel more confident with my current situation

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill was referred to me my a friend of mine. I found the service to be efficient, quick and like Chris's direct approach to my work. Well done and thank you Chris!

Posted 2 months ago

Andy W

Very prompt & structured service that helped put my mind at rest at a difficult time

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I have found Redmans to be very helpful, diligant and thoroughly professional when dealing with them, plus they gone that extra mile for me !

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Thank you to Chris Hadrill at Redmans for his assistance in settling my case. I contacted him at the very last minute and he was happy to help me and managed to get everything done on time and in a very professional manner. I will definitely be happy to work with him again .

Posted 2 months ago

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 6 months ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 6 months ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 6 months ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 7 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 7 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 7 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 7 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 7 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 7 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 7 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 7 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 7 months ago