header-logo header-logo

12 June 2008
Issue: 7325 / Categories: Case law , Discrimination , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment law

D'Silva v NATFHE [2008] IRLR 412

One ground of appeal concerned whether discriminatory inferences should have been drawn from the manner in which the employer had answered the statutory questionnaire under the Race Relations Act 1976.

HELD A failure to answer a discrimination questionnaire, or a failure otherwise in providing information or documents, does not automatically raise a presumption of discrimination. Failures of that kind are matters from which inferences can be drawn, but only in appropriate cases, and the drawing of inferences from such failures is not a “tick-box” exercise. Such failures are only relevant to the extent that they potentially shed light on the actual discrimination complained of and thus on the “mental processes” of the decision-maker.

It is necessary in each case to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of that case, the failure in question is capable of constituting evidence supporting the inference that the respondent acted discriminatorily in the manner alleged; and, if so, whether in the light of any explanation supplied it does in fact justify that inference. There will be many cases where it should be clear from the start, or soon becomes evident, that any alleged failure of this kind, however reprehensible, can have no bearing on the reason why the respondents did the act complained of, which in cases of direct discrimination is what the tribunal has to decide.

In such cases time and money should not be spent pursuing the point (Mr Justice Underhill at 38).

Issue: 7325 / Categories: Case law , Discrimination , Law digest , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll