J Logo v Payone GmbH & Ors
[2024] EAT 9
P Louis v Network Homes Limited
25 April 2023
[2023] EAT 76
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Mr Louis claimed his employer discriminated against him because of his race. The judge dismissed his claim quickly without giving him enough warning. The appeals court agreed the judge should have given more warning, but still said Mr Louis's claim wasn't valid because it didn't show how the employer's actions specifically harmed him because of his race.
Key Facts
- •Mr Louis (claimant/appellant) brought a claim of indirect race discrimination against Network Homes Limited (respondent).
- •The claim arose from the respondent's policy of not applying redundancy procedures to fixed-term employees, allegedly disadvantaging BAME fixed-term employees who would otherwise benefit from the 'Rooney Rule' and other positive action initiatives.
- •The Employment Judge dismissed the claim at a preliminary hearing, finding that the facts did not disclose a viable claim under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
- •Mr Louis appealed, arguing procedural irregularity and errors of law in the Employment Judge's approach.
Legal Principles
Indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 requires a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) that puts or would put persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not.
Equality Act 2010, section 19
Employment Tribunals have broad case management powers but must act fairly and provide reasonable notice before striking out a claim.
Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rules 27, 37, 48, 53, 54
An appeal against the exercise of case management powers will only succeed if the Tribunal exceeded the bounds of reasonable disagreement or acted plainly wrongly.
Various cases cited including Eurobell Holdings plc v Barker [1998] ICR 299, X v Z Limited [1998] ICR 43, CIBC v Beck [2009] IRLR 740, Bache v Essex County Council [2000] ICR 313, DPP v Greenberg [2021] IRLR 1016.
A procedural error does not invalidate a decision if it had no impact on the outcome.
Various cases cited including Bangs v Connex South Eastern Ltd [2005] ICR 763 and Crinion & Anr v IG Markets Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 587.
The concept of a 'practice' in a PCP is broad and includes a particular approach that would be applied again in the future.
Ishola v TfL [2020] EWCA Civ 112
In indirect discrimination, the PCP must be applied indiscriminately to both advantaged and disadvantaged groups.
Rutherford v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2006] ICR 785
Not being given an advantage cannot constitute a disadvantage for the purposes of indirect discrimination.
Cowie v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service [2022] IRLR 913, Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme & Anr [2019] ICR 230
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the Employment Judge erred procedurally by effectively striking out the claim without sufficient notice, this error did not affect the outcome. The EAT found that the facts, even if properly considered, did not disclose a viable claim of indirect race discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010.