The ET found that the Claimant had suffered race discrimination in the way her line manager disciplined her. The ET said: "We conclude on the evidence that when it came to assessing the merits of behaviour allegations against white employees, [the line manager] was slow to move to formal measures. In the case of the Claimant she moved fairly speedily to investigation and suspension for something which was either at the same or lower level of alleged misconduct. We are satisfied that race played a part in her decisions. There is no other credible explanation." The ET considered the Respondent's potential non-discriminatory explanations. The ET concluded that the Respondent had not discharged the burden of proof, saying: "We are satisfied in all of the circumstances the Respondent has not established, on a balance of probabilities, a non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment of the Claimant." The ET subsequently found in favour of the Claimant and the Respondent appealed on 11 grounds including multiple perversity and reasons challenges.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET did not err in law in holding that the burden of proof had shifted to the Respondent to disprove discrimination and that it had failed to do so.