The EAT controversially held that there was no initial burden on the claimant to prove the facts from which a tribunal could then decide if the alleged discrimination had occurred. You can read our full article on the EAT’s decision here.
Prior to Efobi reaching the CA , the court considered the same question concerning the burden of proof in the case of Ayodele v Citylink (Ayodele). In Ayodele, the CA held that the EAT’s interpretation in Efobi had been incorrect and restored the position that it is for the claimant to prove facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn, before the burden shifts to the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation.
Unsurprisingly, the CA in Efobi followed the decision in Ayodele and held that the correct approach is that the claimant should prove the initial facts.
This decision restores the status quo under discrimination legislation pre-dating the Equality Act 2010 that a two-stage approach to the burden of proof in discrimination claims applies: