Atif v Dolce & Gabbana

Atif v Dolce & Gabbana [2024] EAT 47

Facts

The Respondent was an Italian design company where the Claimant, an Algerian speaking Arabic, worked there. She brought up an issue that the Respondent did not address. Following her abuse of the Respondent's sick policy, she was fired. She specifically inquired about her yearly "entitlement" to sick days and took time off on days that had been rejected as holidays.

The claimant alleged racial discrimination and an unjust dismissal. In regards to her termination and grievance, she claimed that she received different treatment than her Italian coworkers. The claims of racial discrimination and wrongful dismissal were both rejected by the panel. Regarding racial prejudice, the panel determined that the claimant had not shown any evidence that would have suggested discrimination. Thus, the Respondent did not have a new burden of evidence. They didn't have to prove that her treatment wasn't motivated by discrimination. This portion of the ruling was appealed by the claimant.

Held

According to the EAT, the claimant has brought forth information that may be considered discriminatory. These include the fact that the Respondent's management was entirely Italian, that her grievance was unfinished, that disciplinary actions had begun shortly after she had complained about her boss, and that her Italian manager had taken sick days in addition to her previous absences. Now, the onus of evidence had changed.

However, the Claimant's appeal was turned down by the EAT. The panel had thoroughly considered the facts and their ramifications, despite having approached the matter incorrectly. They had come to the obvious conclusion that there was no discrimination based on race.

Comment

In cases where a claimant provided evidence that allowed the tribunal to find that there had been racial discrimination, the panel should impose the reverse burden of proof. This was affirmed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Atif v. Dolce & Gabbana case, yet the tribunal's final ruling was still the right one.