Discrimination claimants don’t bear initial burden of proof


Case 2: The facts 


Mr Efobi was a postman. He is a black African, born in Nigeria. Efobi made around 33 unsuccessful applications for IT-related jobs with Royal Mail. 


He pursued a claim of race discrimination against Royal Mail, asserting that his applications had been rejected because of his race, and also making other allegations of race discrimination. 


Although the tribunal upheld some aspects of Efobi’s claims, it rejected the part of his claim relating to the rejected job applications. Efobi appealed the part of the tribunal decision relating to direct race discrimination based on the rejected job applications. 


The rulings


The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the appeal and remitted the claim to a different tribunal.


The appeal was upheld on the basis that the tribunal had misdirected themselves about the meaning of section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. 


The EAT explained that the tribunal had made a mistake when they interpreted section 136 as imposing an initial burden of proof on the claimant. The EAT found that there was no such burden on claimants to prove facts showing the discrimination had taken place. Instead, said the EAT, section 136 requires a consideration of all the evidence from all sources.


Commentary


This case would appear to mark a significant change in approach to the historical requirements of the burden of proof.


Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd UKEAT/0203/16/DA


www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2017/0203_16_1008.html