No Reversed Burden of Proof For Victimisation In Race Cases

www.workrep.co.uk

In the case of Oyarce v Cheshire County Council the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has with evident reluctance decided that in race discrimination claims the reversed burden of proof does not apply to allegations of victimisation.
The EAT has decided to treat race discrimination cases differently to other cases of discrimination where the reversed burden of proof in cases of victimisation will continue to apply.
The reason for this is because the wording of section 54A of the Race Relations Act 1976 (including later ammendments) giving effect to the Equal Treatment Directive 2000, which seems to treat victimisation separately from direct and indirect discrimination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawyers routinely use the threat of high costs to intimidate workers into giving up their claims at an early stage in a case. Apart from the psychological impact on claimants, this tactic often works and workers do withdraw their claims. Those representing workers' interests need to bring political pressure to bear to end this. As is the case in the Small Claims Court, the use of legal professionals in employment tribunals should not be encouraged .

Costs Awards Should Have No Place In A Tribunal
write to your union & MP

Problem At Work?
Contact:- WorkRep - Free Advice For Workers. Tribunal Representation Available

For further information regarding Costs at tribunal

Disclaimer: articles and information published by WorkRep are intended for general information purposes only. No representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy or reliability of such information are made.
© Workrep 19 / 07 / 2007

Return to top News