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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD 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 lawEmployment tribunals

Pothecary Witham Weld (!) Hawthorne (2) v (1) Bullimore (2) Sebastians Solicitors, EAT

by Personnel Today 11 May 2010
by Personnel Today 11 May 2010

The claimant in this case was given an unfavourable reference by her former employer (Pothecary Witham Weld) and argued this was due to her previously bringing sex discrimination claims against the employer.

The tribunal agreed and found the employer had victimised the claimant. In coming to its decision, the tribunal applied the reverse burden of proof – in other words, the claimant proved facts from which the tribunal could conclude there was victimisation in the absence of an adequate explanation from the employer.

This meant that the employer then had to prove that it did not victimise the claimant, which it had not been able to do.

Does not apply?

The employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the basis that the reverse burden of proof does not apply to victimisation claims.

It relied on the case of Oyarce v Cheshire County Council, which held that the reverse burden of proof does not apply to victimisation claims under the Race Relations Act.

The EAT held the reverse burden of proof does apply to victimisation claims under the Sex Discrimination Act because of the differences in the wording of the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

The EAT found the tribunal had also been correct when it stated that the employer had to show not only that the sex discrimination claim was not the main or conscious reason for the unfavourable reference, but also that the claim had not influenced the employer significantly (either consciously or unconsciously).

Key points



  • The reverse burden of proof applies to victimisation claims under the Sex Discrimination Act.

  • The reverse burden of proof only applies under the Race Relations Act in cases of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic or national origins. It does not apply to victimisation under the Race Relations Act.

What you should do



  • Be aware that claims for victimisation could arise a long time after the employee’s employment has ended (four years in this case) and that the reverse burden of proof makes it difficult for employers as they have to ‘prove their innocence’.

  • Be careful when writing references, and in particular do not refer to employment claims brought by employees.

by Richard Ryan, associate, Helen Ward, associate, and Tori O’Neill, trainee solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Regional view: Liverpool
next post
Hung parliament and economic uncertainty stall employer expansion plans

You may also like

Examiner was worker, not self-employed, finds tribunal

30 May 2023

Holiday pay changes: how entitlement will be simplified

26 May 2023

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

26 May 2023

English nationalism is not a philosophical belief, says...

22 May 2023

Covid-resignation driving examiner to have tribunal claim reheard

19 May 2023

Embryologist unfairly dismissed after whistleblowing

18 May 2023

Non-compete clauses and proposed limits on their duration

12 May 2023

How are working time records changing in the...

12 May 2023

How ‘quiet layoffs’ could result in tribunal claims

11 May 2023

Changes to working time, TUPE and non-competes announced

10 May 2023

  • The HR Bundle: Your one-stop guide to building a successful global HR Department PROMOTED | Get your hands on Deel’s free HR bundle...Read more
  • The Benefits of an Employee Assistance Programme PROMOTED | EAPs support employees in a range of ways...Read more
  • Intergenerational working and how to manage up and down the generations PROMOTED | The benefits and challenges of intergenerational workplaces...Read more
  • Bereavement in the workplace: How training can help HR get it right PROMOTED | HR professionals play an essential role...Read more
  • UK workforce mental wellbeing needs PROMOTED | The mental wellbeing support employers are providing misses the mark...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 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 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
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD 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+