Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionRace discriminationSex discriminationEmployment tribunals

Case of the week: Hewage v Grampian Health Board

by Gurpreet Duhra 31 Oct 2012
by Gurpreet Duhra 31 Oct 2012

Hewage v Grampian Health Board

FACTS

Mrs Hewage is of Sri Lankan origin. She was employed by the Grampian Health Board as head of service for the orthodontics department. She resigned from that post in 2003 and subsequently resigned from employment in 2004.

She brought claims for sex and race discrimination, alleging that she had been bullied and harassed by Mrs Strachan, the service manager for surgical specialities, and Mrs Munro, the clinical nurse manager.

She complained via occupational health to the board’s chief executive. The complaint was investigated, but it was recommended that no action be taken. She compared her treatment with that of two white male consultants, Professor Forrester and Mr Larmour. Professor Forrester had made a complaint against Mrs Strachan, which resulted in Mrs Strachan being moved to another position.

Following Mrs Hewage’s resignation, she was replaced by Mr Larmour and he was permitted to sit on the interview panel for dental nurses, a position that had been refused to Mrs Hewage.

DECISION

The employment tribunal upheld Mrs Hewage’s discrimination claims, but the EAT upheld the board’s appeal. The Court of Session allowed Mrs Hewage’s appeal and the board appealed to the Supreme Court.

The issues that arose in the Supreme Court were:



  • whether or not the comparison between Mrs Hewage and Professor Forrester and Mr Larmour was a like-for-like comparison; and
  • the approach that the tribunal should take to the burden of proof.

The Supreme Court held that the comparison was appropriate. The question of whether or not the situations of Mrs Hewage and those of Mr Larmour and Professor Forrester were comparable was one of fact and degree. The tribunal had been entitled to find that these were like-for-like comparisons and that there were differences in treatment for which there was no adequate explanation.

The Supreme Court then considered the burden of proof. Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 states:

“(2) If there are facts from which the court [or tribunal] could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred.

(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.”

The burden of proof shifts to the employer where the claimant shows a prima facie case of discrimination. The Court of Appeal in Madarassy v Nomura interpreted previous guidance given by the same court in Igen v Wong and stressed that the tribunal should hear all the evidence, including that of the respondent, before deciding whether or not the respondent should bear the burden of proof. The respondent may dispute the claimant’s version of events, and therefore the tribunal must weigh up all the evidence in deciding on the balance of probabilities whether or not those events did in fact take place.

The Supreme Court approved the guidance on the application of the burden of proof given by the Court of Appeal in Igen v Wong, as interpreted in Madarassy, but commented that the guidance is not a substitute for the statutory language. The starting point should always be the statute.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the prima facie case of discrimination must be proved by the claimant, before the burden shifts to the employer.

IMPLICATIONS

It is useful to have Supreme Court approval of the Igen v Wong guidance as interpreted in Madarassy. However, although they have formed the basis of many appeals, the Supreme Court emphasised that “it is important not to make too much of the role of the burden of proof provisions”.

The provisions require careful attention where there is room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination, but have nothing to offer where the tribunal is in a position to make positive findings on the evidence.

This case unfortunately does not shed any light on the question of exactly what the claimant is required to show in order to shift the burden of proof. The courts have commented that a difference in, for example, race and a difference in treatment are not sufficient; there must be something more. However, what precisely that “something more” must be is not clear.

Gurpreet Duhra, partner, DLA Piper








Case law from XpertHR on the burden of proof



  • Igen Ltd (formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v Wong and other cases [2005] IRLR 258 CA
  • Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246 CA
  • Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 EAT

 

Avatar
Gurpreet Duhra

previous post
Heseltine calls on employers to play education role
next post
Poor awareness hampering Work Programme’s success

You may also like

Maternity leave: Cost of living crisis highlights need...

25 May 2022

Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k...

23 May 2022

Women in FTSE 350 leadership: ‘A lot of...

20 May 2022

City firms pledge to improve social mobility in...

20 May 2022

One in five employers planning ‘no jab no...

19 May 2022

BNP Paribas banker accused of ’emotional terrorism’ wins...

19 May 2022

Ethnic diversity: report highlights disparities in school leadership

18 May 2022

Bald move: Tribunal was right in sex-related harassment...

17 May 2022

Police Scotland pays out £948,000 to female officer...

16 May 2022

Gender equality facing growing backlash from male managers

16 May 2022
  • The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls PROMOTED | The Great Resignation continues unabated...Read more
  • Navigating the widening “Skills Confidence Gap” in 2022, and beyond PROMOTED | Cornerstone OnDemand conducted a global study...Read more
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+