www.elawfacts.com

The case of Webster v. University Brunel [2004], was recently decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The applicant, Webster, was used at Brunel University as an office manager, computer support administrative staff of the respondent, Brunel University. At the applicant brought proceedings before the Labour Court against the respondent alleging racial discrimination.

The court dismissed his complaint. “This section applies if a complaint made under S 54 and the complaint is that the respondent (a) has committed an act of discrimination based on race … which is illegal (2) If, after hearing of the complaint, the facts show the claimant, the court may, apart from this section, conclude in the absence of an adequate explanation that the respondent (a) has committed such an act of discrimination by the complainant court upheld the complaint unless the defendant proves that he did not commit that works. ”

The applicant argued that:

When the court ruled that the word “Paki” was used, had made a mistake by letting the weight on an applicant to establish that there had been an adverse treatment based on race;

That the court should at least be considered to transfer the burden of proof on the accused;

That the court should have concluded that there may have been discriminatory treatment by the University of Brunel, since the treatment could have been alleged by an employee of the University. Once he found the discriminatory treatment of the Court should have transferred the responsibility of the applicant to the defendant.

The university argues that before the burden of proof could shift to the respondent:

It was necessary for the applicant to establish that there was an unfavorable treatment of the accused and

Only then can conclusions that this treatment amounted to discrimination based on sex or race.

The EAT allowed the appeal.

The EAT held that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent when the applicant had established a prima facie case that there had been an act of discrimination by the respondent.

The EAT considered that future courts should apply the standard prima facie case that the same applies to all matters of racial and gender discrimination. The case was referred to court costs to consider:

If there was a prima facie case of adverse treatment by the defendant by someone to whom the defendant was vicariously liable, and

If so. When the burden of proof requires the applicant to the respondent if the respondent could determine that there was no ill-treatment, significantly affected by race, by the applicant, any of its employees