F Atif v Dolce & Gabbana UK Ltd
[2024] EAT 47
Artem Limited v K Edwins
6 August 2024
[2024] EAT 136
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker claimed their boss unfairly fired them because of their race and gender. A court said the first court made mistakes in its decision and sent the case back for a better look.
Key Facts
- •Artem Ltd appealed an Employment Tribunal's judgment finding race and sex discrimination in the constructive dismissal of Mrs K Edwins.
- •Edwins was employed by Artem Ltd from 1996, rising to Finance Director.
- •Following an unsuccessful application for Managing Director, Edwins' relationship with senior management deteriorated.
- •A meeting in August 2020, where senior management expressed loss of confidence in Edwins, led to her resignation.
- •The Employment Tribunal majority held that the burden of proof shifted to Artem Ltd regarding sex and race discrimination claims and that Artem Ltd failed to disprove them.
- •The Tribunal found Edwins was constructively and unfairly dismissed.
- •The workforce was predominantly male and white.
Legal Principles
In unfair dismissal cases, the employer must show the reason for dismissal and that it's a potentially fair reason.
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 98
In constructive dismissal, the reason is the employer's conduct leading to the repudiatory breach of contract.
Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd [1985] ICR 546
Direct discrimination occurs when someone is treated less favorably because of a protected characteristic.
Equality Act 2010, section 13
In discrimination claims, if facts suggest a contravention, the burden shifts to the respondent to disprove it.
Equality Act 2010, section 136; Igen v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142
Outcomes
The Employment Tribunal's finding of sex and race discrimination was overturned.
The EAT held the Tribunal erred in shifting the burden of proof, failing to properly consider all evidence, and not adequately explaining why, even if the burden shifted, the respondent failed to disprove discrimination.
The discrimination complaints were remitted to the Employment Tribunal for redetermination.
The EAT found errors of law in the Tribunal's analysis, but significant factual findings remained unchallenged, justifying remission to the same Tribunal.