Introduction

Baker v. The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis ([2010] UKEAT 0201_09_0502) is a pivotal case heard by the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on February 5, 2010. The appellant, Mr. Baker, a probationer police officer, contested several decisions made by the Employment Tribunal (ET) regarding his claims of disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA). Central to the appeal were the ET's interpretations of the ET1 claim form and procedural refusals to amend the initial claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The EAT addressed three primary grounds of appeal:

• Ground 1: The ET erred in determining that Baker's first ET1 did not include a claim of disability discrimination.
• Ground 2: The ET wrongly refused to consider Baker's application to amend the first ET1 to incorporate disability discrimination claims.
• Ground 3: The ET misidentified the characteristics of a comparator in Baker's victimisation claims under the RRA.

The EAT upheld Grounds 1 and 2, concluding that while the first ET1 lacked explicit claims under the DDA, the ET was in error by refusing Baker the opportunity to amend his initial claim to include such allegations. Regarding Ground 3, the EAT dismissed Baker's victimisation claims, supporting the ET's approach in selecting appropriate comparators.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Several key precedents influenced the judgment:

• Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996]: Established the discretionary nature of allowing amendments to ET1 claims.
• Dodd v British Telecommunications plc [1988]: Affirmed that ET1 forms need not be exhaustively detailed, especially when completed without legal assistance.
• Burns International Securities Services (U.K.) Ltd v Butt [1983]: Emphasized the importance of not requiring ET1s to be free of all defects.
• Khan [2001]: Provided guidance on determining comparators in victimisation claims.

Legal Reasoning

The EAT critiqued the ET's rigid interpretation of the ET1 form. While acknowledging the ET's role in ensuring claims are adequately presented, the EAT emphasized flexibility, especially in cases where initial claims may lack specificity due to being unaided by legal counsel. The refusal to allow Mr. Baker to amend his ET1 was deemed a procedural error, particularly given that the deficiencies could potentially be remedied without prejudice to the Respondent.

On the matter of victimisation claims, the ET's determination of appropriate comparators was upheld. The ET employed a tailored approach, considering factors beyond mere protected acts, which aligns with Lord Nicholls' guidance in Khan.

Impact

This judgment underscores the Employment Tribunals' responsibility to ensure that claimants are not unjustly barred from presenting their cases due to procedural technicalities. It advocates for a balanced approach where the substance of claims is given precedence over form, particularly in discrimination cases. Future ETs may reference this case to justify allowing amendments to ET1 forms, promoting fairness and thorough examination of all relevant claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ET1 Form

The ET1 is the initial claim form submitted to the Employment Tribunal by the claimant. It outlines the nature of the claim, the parties involved, and the specific allegations. Proper completion is crucial for the tribunal to understand and adjudicate the case effectively.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA)

The DDA was UK legislation aimed at preventing discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various settings, including employment. It mandated reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled persons.

Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA)

The RRA prohibited discrimination based on race, color, nationality, and ethnic or national origins. Victimisation under the RRA involves treating someone less favorably because they've acted or intend to act under the Act.

Comparator in Victimisation Claims

A comparator is a hypothetical or actual person against whom the claimant's treatment is compared to determine if discrimination has occurred. Selecting an appropriate comparator is essential for establishing whether the claimant was treated less favorably.