EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL- opening and closing subs and cross exam

[psychojuice]

A couple of questions if I may?

1. If a case is taken to an ET for direct race dis, is it possible for the ET to rule that indirect dis is more appropriate?

2. Essop v Home Office UKBA- could this data be used by the ET in my case for race discrimination in an interview?

over 10 years at the company, the % of job applicants as per their skin colour:

- white candidates- 60%
-BME candidates - 20%

as a result, the % of job offers as per their skin colour:

white- 80%
BME- 12%

the issue I have is that my claim is for direct race dis, not indirect which is what this data shows.

Any ideas please?

[AnotherLevel]

the issue I have is that my claim is for direct race dis, not indirect which is what this data shows.

Does the data actually show that though? Do you know how many candidates we're talking about here?

I imagine there would have to be a causal link between the interview process and the % of job offers for this argument.

Say there are 10 BME candidates: 2 turn up late for the interview, 2 don't do any preparation work, 1 doesn't meet the criteria for the position and 1 does not complete the task. Your employer could give this as a very plausible explanation as to why it's a failure of the BME candidates, rather than the overall process for recruitment.

[psychojuice]

Ula mariefab what is the difference (in content) between a closing speech and a closing written submission? thanks

[ULA]

A written document gives structure and detail. It also gives you a “second bite at the cherry”. The tribunal will take your written submissions back to their deliberations.

Written submissions also allow you to focus your oral submissions on the most important points that you want to get across. The detail can then be dealt with by saying “I cover with this in my written submissions, unless the tribunal would like me to go into it now?”.

You may also find that the preparation of writing down exactly what you want to say to the tribunal, in complete sentences, with relevant extracts from the law and evidence, is the best way of preparing yourself. So, I suggest it is worth preparing your written submissions first, from this you can take the main points and use them as part of your oral submission.

Also, once you know what you want to be able to say at the end of the case it may also be worth you going through both what evidence your witnesses needs to give and further review what cross-examination of the Respondents witnesses needs to be done.

[psychojuice]

Ula mariefab Hi both, please could you help me? Went to my ET today. Went fine as I was x-examined first.

I know you have both tried to explain this to me, but I am just unsure still. Proving the first stage/ prima facie case- I'm still unsure if I am doing this right. Please could you explain this to me as simply as you can. I'm sorry for asking this again, but I genuinely feel I may be barking up the wrong tree.

How do you prove a prima facie case? Do I say the respondent did xyz, then the judge decides if xyz are enough to prove a prima facie case? How is the strength of the evidence decided? Please help I really do feel I am perhaps missing something/ getting very nervous!

[mariefab]

1. You start with what happened.
e.g. Low overall score, your communication score, the unsatisfactory way your feedback requests were dealt with, alleged lies from Mr Taylor, you weren't awarded the higher paid role.

2. Next, you show that you were treated less favourably than candidates of a different race.
e.g. others scored higher, their feedback requests were dealt with better, they weren't lied to, a white person was awarded the higher paid role.

3. Then you have to show something more. It doesn't have to be much. Just something from which the Tribunal could infer that the reason for the difference between 1 and 2 could have been race.
Specifically race. Not something that could just as easily be due to sex, religion, age etc.
I can't give you any examples.

If you don't show all 3 you won't have established a prima facie case.