P Louis v Network Homes Limited
[2023] EAT 76
J Logo v Payone GmbH & Ors
8 February 2024
[2024] EAT 9
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker claimed his employer discriminated against him because of their use of German in the workplace. A lower court dismissed his case without a full hearing. A higher court reversed that decision, saying the lower court didn't properly consider all the evidence and should have held a full hearing to decide the case.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, Mr. J Logo, worked for Payone GmbH, a German payment provider with a small UK presence.
- •Mr. Logo claimed indirect race discrimination based on three issues: (1) the respondent's website being only available in German from January 2020 to mid-2021; (2) a job promotion being advertised only in German; and (3) meetings being conducted almost exclusively in German.
- •The Employment Tribunal struck out Mr. Logo's claims, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success in showing the respondent failed to establish justification for its practices.
Legal Principles
Indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 requires a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) to be applied generally, put a group sharing the claimant's protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage, put the claimant at that disadvantage, cause a detriment, and not be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Equality Act 2010, sections 19 and 39
Justification requires an objective balance between the discriminatory effect of the PCP and the reasonable needs of the employer; the tribunal must make its own judgment, not grant a margin of appreciation to the employer; the analysis must be critical, thorough, and detailed; and the employer must show the means are both appropriate and reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Hardy & Hanson plc v Lax, Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz
Striking out a discrimination claim is a draconian step, only taken in the clearest cases. Core factual issues requiring oral evidence should not be decided summarily.
Mechkarov v Citibank N.A, Anyanwu & Another v South Bank University
Outcomes
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Employment Tribunal failed to properly analyze the justification defense, granting a substantial margin of appreciation to the employer and conducting a superficial analysis that lacked the necessary critical and thorough evaluation required by case law. The EAT held the matter was not suitable for strike-out.