• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Guilty until proven innocent? Why the burden of proof change matters

30th August 2017/in News /by Nicola Brown

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Efobi v Royal Mail was published recently, and at first glance many people seem to have thought that it was a bit of a technical point, or just legal nit-picking, which wouldn’t make any difference to how things work in practice. However, here’s why in my opinion all employers should be sitting up and taking notice of the decision.

What was the case about?

The Efobi case was about an allegation of direct race discrimination. However, the principles that were established apply to any kind of discrimination.

Mr Efobi had made 33 different internal applications for IT roles within Royal Mail, but all had been unsuccessful. He believed that the reason for this was his race.

Royal Mail disputed the claim. In their defence, they focused on the reasons why they said Mr Efobi’s applications had been unsuccessful. They did not present any evidence about the thinking of the decision-makers or about the race of the other applicants for the positions.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr Efobi’s claim, but he appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on the grounds that the Tribunal had made an error of law in their decision.

What was the legal position previously?

Until the EAT’s decision in Efobi, the way that an Employment Tribunal would approach a discrimination claim would be to look at whether the Claimant in the case had established a basic case, and if the Claimant had done so, the burden of proof would then shift to the Respondent to show that discrimination had not occurred.

This was the position before the Equality Act 2010 was introduced, and although the wording of the relevant provisions of the Equality Act was slightly different from the preceding legislation, the case law after 2010 had followed the pre-existing position.

What did the case decide?

The fundamental point the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided was that there was no burden on the Claimant to establish a basic case, as had been previously thought. Instead, the Employment Tribunal needed to look at all the evidence ‘in the round’ and make a decision about whether there were “facts from which it could conclude discrimination had occurred.” If such facts are found and there is no reasonable explanation put forward by the employer, then the Tribunal must find that discrimination has occurred.

So is it a case of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ for employers?

Well, it isn’t quite as extreme as that, but it is certainly a very unwelcome development from an employer’s point of view.

The main effect of the decision is that employers will need to think carefully about how they defend allegations of discrimination. Rather than falling into the same trap as Royal Mail, who presumably felt they had done enough by focusing on their reasons for rejecting Mr Efobi’s applications, employers need to demonstrate evidence to show a lack of discriminatory motive. Otherwise, they risk the Tribunal drawing adverse inferences and potentially making a finding against them.

In particular, it remains to be seen what the effect will be in cases where the employer alleges the employee has a weak claim – if the Tribunal has to hear all the evidence ‘in the round’ before drawing a conclusion as to discrimination, then it is going to make it virtually impossible for weak cases to be weeded out before reaching a final hearing. This could be even more of an issue now that there are no fees payable to bring a claim.

It is possible that Royal Mail may appeal to the Court of Appeal, and we will keep you updated on any news on this.

If you would like to talk through a situation you are dealing with, or if you need advice on any aspect of employment law, please contact any member of the Pure Employment Law team (01243 836840 or [email protected]).

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg 0 0 Nicola Brown https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Pure-Employment-Law-logo.jpg Nicola Brown2017-08-30 15:38:182017-08-31 08:44:09Guilty until proven innocent? Why the burden of proof change matters

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • What to expect during 2021 – employment law developments 21st January 2021
  • Did “office banter” about an employee’s memory amount to age discrimination? 21st January 2021
  • Update on Furlough 20th January 2021
  • Restricting Restrictive Covenants? 20th January 2021
  • Q&A: What to expect from a remote Tribunal hearing 20th January 2021
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only