The Claimant, who described herself as being Chinese Caribbean and British Guyanese in origin, worked as finance director for the Respondent which was a business dealing in special effects. The Claimant had been promoted over the previous 27 years but was not a qualified accountant. Following a dispute over the need for a financial review undertaken by a different person to the Claimant, the Claimant resigned and claimed that she had been constructively unfairly dismissed. The ET found that the reason for the treatment of the Claimant was her sex and race. The ET also said that the burden of proof had shifted to the Respondent and they had failed to discharge that burden of proof. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. To make out a complaint of race or sex discrimination it would only be necessary that the protected characteristic was an effective cause of the treatment. However, because the ET made findings as to the reason for the treatment that resulted in the Claimant’s resignation, when rejecting the victimisation complaint, it was incumbent on the ET to explain why it concluded that the explanation was insufficient to establish that race or sex was in no sense whatsoever the reason for the dismissal.