Hi, I am looking for someone to write an article on employment and discrimination law Paper must be at least 2250 words. Please, no plagiarized work! The test for less favorable treatment is clearly an objective one and the question that is to be asked is whether the complainant would have been treated differently more favorably had it not been for his sex. Thus, the tribunal must ask what the ‘conscious or subconscious reason for treating the claimant less favorably was’ (Nagarajan v. London Regional Transport). The decision of less favorable treatment is for the tribunal to decide and it is not a difficult one.
In order to determine less favorable treatment, a comparison with an actual or hypothetical comparator is to be made, however, it is necessary that the relevant circumstances of the complainant and the comparative group are the same or not materially different. Thus, in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary2, it was stated that
From s.63A and Igen v Wong3 it is clear that the evidential burden to show facts from which Employment Tribunal can conclude that the employer has committed an act of discrimination and if such burden is met then the legal burden shifts to the employer who has to show that the reason for the treatment was not related in any way with claimant’s sex. Thus, if an inadequate explanation is provided the Employment Tribunal must find that the employer committed an act of unlawful discrimination.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
In the current scenario, it is quite evident that Graham has received less favorable treatment on the ground of his sex and this is clear from what has been said by IRU in their reason for rejecting Graham. Furthermore, if a hypothetical comparator is drawn then in the same circumstances a woman would have received more favorable treatment and thus direct discrimination is established.
The remedies that might be available to Graham are a recommendation that IRU should take action so as to reduce the effect of the discrimination. Further, he could receive compensation which could include pecuniary losses if any and injury to feelings.