Artem Limited v K Edwins
[2024] EAT 136
F Atif v Dolce & Gabbana UK Ltd
7 March 2024
[2024] EAT 47
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued her employer for racial discrimination after being fired. The first court didn't follow the correct legal steps perfectly but looked at all the evidence anyway. The appeals court agreed that the original decision to not find discrimination was fair, even though some of the procedure was slightly wrong.
Key Facts
- •Mrs. Atif, an Algerian Arab-speaking client advisor, was dismissed from Dolce & Gabbana UK Limited for abusing the company's sickness absence policy.
- •She claimed unfair dismissal and race discrimination, alleging that the investigation, discipline, and dismissal were due to her race and the company's pro-Italian structure.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed her claims, finding no evidence to shift the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •The ET acknowledged the company's predominantly Italian management but found this insufficient to infer race discrimination in this specific disciplinary context.
- •The ET considered several potential comparators but found none to be materially similar to Mrs. Atif's case.
Legal Principles
Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 regarding the burden of proof in discrimination cases.
Equality Act 2010
A finding of discrimination requires only that the protected characteristic had a significant influence on the relevant decision; a fair decision doesn't preclude discrimination.
Case Law (implicitly referenced)
In discrimination cases, if evidence suggests potential discrimination, it's inappropriate to simply weigh it against other evidence without first considering if the burden of proof has shifted under Section 136.
Field v Steve Pye & Co (KL) Ltd [2022] EAT 68
Outcomes
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed Mrs. Atif's appeal.
While the EAT agreed the ET should have considered whether the burden of proof shifted under section 136, it found that the ET's detailed consideration of the facts and its clear conclusion negated any prejudice caused by not explicitly applying section 136. The ET's conclusion was deemed not perverse.