This case in effect mirrors the position in race claims where the selection of a victim in order to target and discriminate against another person on grounds of a prohibited reason fell within the remit of the Equal Treatment Directive and ultimately the Race Relations Act 1976.
The EAT have applied the same criteria to this case whereby the claimant was used as a victim to remove another member of staff from employment on the grounds of his religion and belief.
Employment Tribunal failed to consider this and thus the EAT have allowed this appeal.
The EAT reasoned:-
- Regulation 5(1) requires conduct "on the grounds of religion or belief" not solely on the grounds of the claimants own religion or belief.
- This interpretation is consistent with the purposive approach Tribunals are asked to take in interpreting certain aspects of domestic law in accordance with the EC Framework Directive. This means that it is possible to be treated less favourably on the grounds of someone elses religion or belief.
- To use an employee to carry out a discriminatory policy is unlawful if it (not surprisingly) is reasonably perceived by the claimant to be creating a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Regulation 5(1)(b).
- What is further quite important is that these circumstances above need not (on the basis of this authority) be confined to just when someone is instructed to carry out an act of discrimination but can also include where an employee is used in any other way to carry out discriminatory policies.
This is an important case and advice should the sought to prevent these sorts of issues arising in the first place. I am a specialist in Discrimination Law and would be glad to answer any of your questions in due course.
Email me on gda@hrlegalpartners.com or contact me on 0870 756 2929.
No comments:
Post a Comment