Paczkowska v R-Com Consulting [2022] EAT 70
The Employment Tribunal (ET) made an error in its judgment concerning the Appellant's claims of victimisation and direct disability discrimination. The Appellant's victimisation claim succeeded, but the ET did not assess her direct disability discrimination claim, even though both claims were based on the same detriment - the refusal of an employment reference.
Key Principles Derived from the Case:
If two claims are based on the same detriment, it's essential for the tribunal to independently assess the merit of each claim, even if one is successful.
An ET should not base its decision on the absence of an explanation if one was provided.
Facts & Application of Law to the Facts: The Appellant had faced victimisation and claimed that she did not receive an employment reference due to her previous ET claim. The ET concurred with this. However, the Appellant also made a direct disability discrimination claim, asserting that her lack of reference was due to her disability. The ET failed to assess this claim. The Respondent argued that since the reason for the refusal was identified (i.e., the previous ET claim), no other reasons existed. But this was refuted as the ET explicitly mentioned not considering the direct discrimination claim.
Furthermore, the Appellant had another claim, related to comments from an interview on 27th April 2016, which was presented out of the prescribed time. The ET refused to extend the time, stating there was no explanation for the delay. However, the Appellant had provided an explanation on 22nd February 2017. The ET's decision was based on inaccurate information.
This case is useful for those seeking to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from the Employment Tribunal where the case involved multiple claims based on the same detriment.
