Whistleblowing: EAT equates whistleblowing detriment claims with discrimination claims for purpose of employer's burden of proof
-
expand disabled
Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester [2011] IRLR 111 EAT (0 other reports)
In Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester [2011] IRLR 111 EAT, the EAT held that, where a worker has suffered a detriment following a protected disclosure, the employer must prove that its act or deliberate failure to act was “in no sense whatever” on the grounds that the employee had done the protected act.
Key points
- Where there has been a detriment following a protected act, the burden of proof is on the employer to prove, in effect, that the worker was not victimised.
To continue reading, register for free access now.
Register now
Already a Brightmine HR and Compliance Centre user?
Log in
