The Claimant is a black disabled woman. She claimed race discrimination after the Respondent refused to make a discretionary payment to her during sickness absence, which had earlier been paid to another female employee who was white and neurodiverse. Her claim succeeded at the ET, the ET concluding that the Respondent had not considered the exercise of the discretion. It had not given cogent reasons why that discretion would not have been exercised in favour of the Claimant. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET’s written reasons did not set out the relevant law other than by reference to a single case. In particular they did not make any reference to the well established principle that, to establish discriminatory treatment there has to be “something more” beyond a mere difference in status and treatment. In the absence of any finding of a “something more” the ET erred in law.