Accepted author manuscript, 181 KB, PDF document
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Efobi v Royal Mail Group
T2 - Much Ado About Nothing?
AU - Letwin, Jeremy
AU - Rendall, Josephine
PY - 2022/11/30
Y1 - 2022/11/30
N2 - Following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Efobi v Royal Mail Group, claimants in employment tribunals must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden of proof falls on the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the impugned conduct. The two stages are separate. Tribunals cannot draw any inferences from a respondent's explanation (or lack of explanation) when deciding whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination. We argue that, in reaching this decision, the Supreme Court failed to tackle squarely the important normative question at the heart of the dispute: whether there should be constraints on the evidence courts may consider when adjudicating whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination. Had the Supreme Court confronted this normative question, the outcome of the case might have been different.
AB - Following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Efobi v Royal Mail Group, claimants in employment tribunals must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden of proof falls on the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the impugned conduct. The two stages are separate. Tribunals cannot draw any inferences from a respondent's explanation (or lack of explanation) when deciding whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination. We argue that, in reaching this decision, the Supreme Court failed to tackle squarely the important normative question at the heart of the dispute: whether there should be constraints on the evidence courts may consider when adjudicating whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination. Had the Supreme Court confronted this normative question, the outcome of the case might have been different.
U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12710
DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12710
M3 - Journal article
VL - 85
SP - 1504
EP - 1514
JO - Modern Law Review
JF - Modern Law Review
SN - 0026-7961
IS - 6
ER -