The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that a tribunal was wrong to dismiss a claim for discriminatory constructive dismissal, having failed to reach a finding on each of the claimant's arguments.
What Was the Background to the Claim?
In the case of in Wytrzyszczewski v British Airways, the claimant was employed by British Airways (BA) as cabin crew. He resigned and brought various claims, including for discriminatory constructive dismissal. The alleged discrimination related to a comment made to him at a meeting, and the claimant's subsequent complaint, which BA allegedly failed to investigate.
The Tribunal considered the comment that prompted the claimant's complaint. The Tribunal described the comment as "inoffensive". It dismissed the claims, having failed to address the question of whether BA had discriminated against the claimant in failing to investigate his complaint.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant would have been dismissed at the end of his probationary period had he not resigned. On this basis the Tribunal said it would have reduced the claimant's compensation by 100% under the Polkey rule, even if his claim had been upheld. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
What Did the EAT Decide?
The EAT upheld the claimant's appeal. The fact that the Tribunal had found that the original comment was "inoffensive" did not automatically mean that any failure to investigate the complaint was also not discriminatory.
The EAT also found that it was inappropriate for the Tribunal to set out alternative findings and reduced compensation in this case. Generally speaking, these alternative findings can form a helpful basis from which to encourage the parties to explore settlement. However, in this case there was a gap in the Tribunal's reasoning, so it follows that the alternative findings also do not stand.
What Can Employers Learn from This Decision?
This decision concerns a Tribunal's error in determining what the EAT acknowledged was a particularly complex case. Nevertheless there are useful learning points for employers that can be drawn out from the case. In particular, had BA investigated the claimant's complaint in this case, the subsequent litigation could have been avoided.
The EAT has remitted the case to the same Tribunal to determine whether BA's alleged failure to investigate the claimant's complaint was discriminatory.
For more information, please contact Charlotte Rose in our Employment Law team on 0117 314 5219, or complete the form below.
Tribunal Should Not Have Dismissed Race Discrimination Claim Relating to "inoffensive" Comment
on Friday, 24 February 2023.
Immigration white paper published: what HR teams need to know
Government responds to concerns over third-party harassment duty in the Employment Rights Bill
HMRC revises CEST employment status tool and guidance
TUPE: no transfer of liability for harm caused to third parties
Contractual flexibility clause did not entitle lorry driver to additional pay (EAT)
Share this page:
Share this page:
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that a tribunal was wrong to dismiss a claim for discriminatory constructive dismissal, having failed to reach a finding on each of the claimant's arguments.
What Was the Background to the Claim?
In the case of in Wytrzyszczewski v British Airways, the claimant was employed by British Airways (BA) as cabin crew. He resigned and brought various claims, including for discriminatory constructive dismissal. The alleged discrimination related to a comment made to him at a meeting, and the claimant's subsequent complaint, which BA allegedly failed to investigate.
The Tribunal considered the comment that prompted the claimant's complaint. The Tribunal described the comment as "inoffensive". It dismissed the claims, having failed to address the question of whether BA had discriminated against the claimant in failing to investigate his complaint.
The Tribunal also found that the claimant would have been dismissed at the end of his probationary period had he not resigned. On this basis the Tribunal said it would have reduced the claimant's compensation by 100% under the Polkey rule, even if his claim had been upheld. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
What Did the EAT Decide?
The EAT upheld the claimant's appeal. The fact that the Tribunal had found that the original comment was "inoffensive" did not automatically mean that any failure to investigate the complaint was also not discriminatory.
The EAT also found that it was inappropriate for the Tribunal to set out alternative findings and reduced compensation in this case. Generally speaking, these alternative findings can form a helpful basis from which to encourage the parties to explore settlement. However, in this case there was a gap in the Tribunal's reasoning, so it follows that the alternative findings also do not stand.
What Can Employers Learn from This Decision?
This decision concerns a Tribunal's error in determining what the EAT acknowledged was a particularly complex case. Nevertheless there are useful learning points for employers that can be drawn out from the case. In particular, had BA investigated the claimant's complaint in this case, the subsequent litigation could have been avoided.
The EAT has remitted the case to the same Tribunal to determine whether BA's alleged failure to investigate the claimant's complaint was discriminatory.
For more information, please contact Charlotte Rose in our Employment Law team on 0117 314 5219, or complete the form below.