I recently represented a case of sexual harassment in the employment tribunal. \u00a0Due to the huge amount of conflicting evidence that was heard, the tribunal panel had to consider the shifting burden of proof.<\/p>\n
In many sex discrimination there is no clear cut evidence and there will be different perceptions from those involved therefore the test for establishing discrimination is central to any case. \u00a0The test has two stages.<\/p>\n
First the claimant must establish that their case, on the balance of probabilities, amounts to discrimination and that the reason for their unfavourable treatment was because of their sex. The tribunal will consider what inferences it can draw from the evidence and whether discrimination took place. \u00a0This can include an evasive reply to a discrimination questionnaire or a breach of a relevant code of practice. \u00a0The respondent can rely on:<\/p>\n
(a). Disputed events\u00a0<\/span> If the claimant is able to show discrimination then the burden of proof shifts to the employer who will have to show that on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was not on the grounds of sex. Their explanation must be backed by evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n Whilst many cases will fail at stage one, if a claimant can show discrimination took place then stage two will be a formality.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I recently represented a case of sexual harassment in the employment tribunal. \u00a0Due to the huge amount of conflicting evidence that was heard, the tribunal panel had to consider the shifting burden of proof. In many sex discrimination there is no clear cut evidence and there will be different perceptions from those involved therefore the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[378,72],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-proof","category-sex-discrimination"],"aioseo_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n(b). Circumstances of an alleged comparator are different
\n(c). Reason for differential treatment of a comparator e.g. different conduct
\n(d). Discriminator behaves unreasonably\/unfairly to all irrespective of sex,
\nrace etc
\n(e). Special reasons for atypical conduct e.g. ill health, pressure of work<\/p>\n