RACE DISCRIMINATION
 A recent decision in a case involving Amnesty International serves as a good reminder that if detrimental treatment is on the grounds of race the motive behind that treatment is irrelevant.
An employee was refused promotion on the basis that the employer considered that her ethnicity would expose her to additional risk in the role. The Claimant had been identified as the most suitable candidate for a promotion but the employer considered that it would increase the risk to her if she was appointed. The job would entail the Claimant travelling to areas of extreme racial tension and it was thought by the employer that the Claimant’s race would increase the risk to her.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) stated that the question to be asked in claims of direct discrimination is: what is the ground, or the reason, for the treatment complained of? The EAT then identified two types of claim. One where the act was inherently discriminatory and the other where the act in itself is not discriminatory but was rendered so by a discriminatory motivation. They said though that the discriminators motivation is irrelevant.
As such the only question to be asked in the case was whether the grounds for the employer’s reason for not promoting the Claimant was her ethnic origin. The EAT said once the Tribunal had confirmed that it was the Claimants ethnicity that was the reason for her not being appointed that was the end of the matter. The employer’s reasons, no matter how sensible and legitimate, were irrelevant in determining the case. Therefore, the employer was found to have discriminated against the Claimant on racial grounds. |
