Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a decision of the Fair Employment Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 17 December 2018. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had discriminated against the Respondent on the grounds of his sex and religious beliefs and had unfairly dismissed him as part of a course of discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal ordered the Appellant to pay £30,000 for injury to the Respondent's feelings.
The Respondent had been employed by the Appellant from March 2016, initially informally and then under a formal contract from May 2016, as an assistant performing administrative and general labouring duties. The Respondent also lived in a property owned by the Appellant, but despite requests, no formal tenancy agreement was provided. The Respondent alleged a pattern of harassment and interference with his religious statues and personal belongings within his home by the Appellant, including unauthorized entries and mocking text messages.
The dismissal occurred via text message in June 2016, with the Respondent understanding he had been sacked. The Appellant gave conflicting explanations for the termination, including redundancy and a trivial domestic dispute, which the Tribunal rejected as untruthful.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal erred in law by finding that the Respondent's dismissal was unfair and discriminatory on the grounds of sex and religion despite an absence of direct evidence relating to the reasons for dismissal.
- Whether the Tribunal's award of £30,000 for injury to feelings was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant initially contended there was no evidence to support that the dismissal was unfair or discriminatory on any protected ground, but this ground was later abandoned.
- The Appellant argued that the award for injury to feelings was manifestly excessive, referring to the Vento guidelines and asserting that the Tribunal improperly took into account the Respondent's dependence on the Appellant for accommodation.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments beyond the evidence and findings of discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 (as amended by Ingen v Wong [2005] IRLR 258) |
Direct evidence of discrimination is rarely available; tribunals must consider primary facts to infer discrimination. |
The Tribunal applied this principle to conclude that the evidence presented supported an inference of discrimination despite lack of direct evidence. |
| Madarassy v Nomura International PLC [2007] IRLR 247 |
"Could conclude" means what a reasonable tribunal could properly conclude from all evidence. |
The Tribunal used this standard to assess whether discriminatory acts could reasonably be inferred from the facts. |
| Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] IRLR 748 |
Shifting burden of proof in discrimination cases recognizes difficulties employees face proving motivation behind treatment. |
The Tribunal acknowledged that claimants need not prove motivation on the balance of probabilities but must establish facts supporting discrimination. |
| Mihail v Lloyds Banking Group [2014] NICA 24 |
Appellate courts do not rehear factual findings unless plainly wrong or unreasonable. |
The Court of Appeal deferred to the Tribunal's factual findings, finding no basis to overturn them. |
| DB v Chief Constable [2017] UKSC 7 |
Appellate review of factual findings is limited and deferential. |
The Court applied this principle in affirming the Tribunal's findings of fact. |
| Re B (a Child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911 |
Factual conclusions will only be overturned if unsupported by evidence, based on misunderstanding, or unreasonable. |
The Court found the Tribunal's conclusions met this standard and upheld them. |
| Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1871 |
Guidance on bands of compensation for injury to feelings in discrimination cases. |
The Court considered the Tribunal's award within the Vento bands and found the upper band award justified. |
| Da Bell v NSPCC [2010] IRLR 19 |
Updated Vento guidance on compensation bands for injury to feelings. |
The Tribunal applied these updated bands in setting the compensation award. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court emphasized that anti-discrimination legislation does not require direct evidence of discriminatory motivation; rather, claimants must prove facts from which a tribunal could reasonably conclude a discriminatory act occurred. The Court reviewed the Tribunal's application of established case law, including Barton, Madarassy, and Laing, confirming that the Tribunal properly considered the evidence and drew reasonable inferences.
The Tribunal found the Respondent's evidence credible and consistent, supported by objective evidence such as photographs and text messages, while finding the Appellant's evidence contradictory and unsatisfactory. The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the Appellant's conduct constituted direct discrimination on grounds of religion and sex.
Regarding the dismissal, the Court accepted the Tribunal's finding that the dismissal was part of a continuing discriminatory campaign, even though no direct evidence linked the dismissal explicitly to protected characteristics. The Court noted the Tribunal's proper application of the burden of proof and the reasonableness of its inferences.
On the quantum of damages, the Court considered the Vento bands and the aggravating features of the case, including the public and humiliating nature of the discrimination, the involvement of other employees, and the Respondent's vulnerability. The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that the accommodation factor should not be considered, noting the overlap between the Respondent's home and workplace context. The Court found the £30,000 award at the top of the upper band justified and not manifestly excessive.
Holding and Implications
The Court of Appeal DISMISSED THE APPEAL, affirming the Tribunal's findings of discrimination on grounds of sex and religion, the unfair dismissal linked to discriminatory treatment, and the award of £30,000 for injury to feelings.
The decision directly upholds the Tribunal's factual findings and legal application without setting new precedent. It reinforces established principles on the burden of proof in discrimination cases and confirms the appropriateness of considering the totality of circumstances, including employer-provided accommodation, in assessing discriminatory conduct and damages.