In Clifton Diocese v Parker [2026] EAT 68, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the correct application of the burden of proof in direct religion or belief discrimination claims under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010.
The claimant, a non-Catholic employee, succeeded before the Employment Tribunal (ET) in complaints of direct religion or belief discrimination and harassment arising from her treatment during disciplinary proceedings. The ET also found that her dismissal was unfair and wrongful.
The EAT held that the ET’s discrimination analysis was flawed. It had relied heavily on the conduct of individuals who were not alleged to have committed the relevant discriminatory acts, without explaining why that conduct supported an inference that the alleged decision-maker acted because of the claimant’s lack of Catholic faith.
The EAT also held that the ET had wrongly treated the Diocese’s absence of an adequate explanation as sufficient to shift the burden of proof under section 136. Procedural unfairness or bad treatment alone does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The employer is only required to prove a non-discriminatory reason once the claimant has first established primary facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred. The findings of direct discrimination and harassment under sections 13 and 26 were remitted for reconsideration.
The claimant’s successful unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were not challenged on appeal and therefore remained unaffected by the EAT’s decision.
