The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has informed us in Warburton v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police what a detriment is when a worker wants to claim victimisation as part of a discrimination claim.
Employment Partner Paul Burton discusses the implications of this definition for employers and looks at how they can deal with and mitigate such claims.
What does victimisation mean in the workplace?
People use the word ‘victimisation’ in everyday life to say they are being ‘picked on’. However, in employment law it has a very specific meaning.
Under the Equality Act 2010 someone has been victimised when they suffer a detriment because they have already either:
- Alleged they have been discriminated against, or
- They have supported someone else in saying they have been discriminated.
So, one of the key factors in such a claim is what amounts to a detriment.
What happened in this case?
Mr Warburton had applied to Northamptonshire Police to be a police officer. As part of his application, he admitted the already had a claim against another police force for discrimination.
His application was rejected by Northamptonshire Police, saying he could not be vetted properly. Mr Warburton did not believe this, instead alleging the rejection was due to his existing discrimination claim.
He therefore made a victimisation claim to the employment tribunal.
What did the Employment Tribunal find?
The employment tribunal held that Mr Warburton had the existing discrimination claim, the so-called ‘protected act’, but that he had not suffered a detriment because of it.
Essentially, the tribunal found that Mr Warburton’s application had not been rejected on the basis he had made the discrimination claim. Mr Warburton appealed to the EAT.
Click here to read the full article.