Race discrimination

Case 8: The facts

Dr D’Silva, a senior university lecturer, brought a number of complaints of race discrimination. On the day of the hearing he applied for an adjournment, which was refused, and the tribunal continued with a full hearing in his absence. It upheld a number of his claims, and his employer appealed.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that, in respect of all but one of D’Silva’s complaints, the tribunal’s finding had been impermissible because it had decided claims that D’Silva had not put forward and had failed to take into account matters that the employer had put forward in defence.

In claims of direct discrimination, which these were, the EAT stressed that the claimant must be specific about what it is that constitutes the less favourable treatment and must identify an actual or hypothetical comparator.

The tribunal had failed to deal with the employer’s allegations concerning D’Silva’s credibility, and had also ignored non-racial reasons it had put forward in defence to the claim. For example, it said it had removed Dr D’Silva from teaching a class because the original teacher wished to return after a period of sickness: this meant its actions were not discriminatory.

D’Silva’s complaint that the employer should have brought in Acas to hear his grievance was sent back to the tribunal to be considered properly; the rest were dismissed.

Manchester Metropolitan University v D’Silva UKEAT/0024/07