What is the relevance of a detriment for the purposes of victimisation?
The relevance of a detriment for the purposes of victimisation is central to establishing a claim under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010).
A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because B has done, or A believes B has done, or may do, a protected act Equality Act 2010 (c15).
A detriment in this context is broadly defined and can include any disadvantage, harm, or loss that the individual might reasonably consider has changed their position for the worse or put them at a disadvantage The determination of whether a detriment has occurred is primarily from the perspective of the alleged victim. This means that the focus is on whether the individual subjected to the treatment reasonably perceives it as a detriment, rather than the intention of the person inflicting the treatment Derbyshire and others v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council - [2007] 3 All ER 81, POTHECARY WITHAM WELD and another (appellants) v. BULLIMORE and another (respondents) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (intervener) - [2010] IRLR 572. In this case, the tribunal found that the letters sent by the employer constituted a detriment from the perspective of the employees, even though the employer's intention was to protect its position in ongoing litigation. Furthermore, the detriment need not involve physical or economic consequences. It is sufficient if a reasonable person would or might take the view that they had been disadvantaged in the circumstances in which they had to work.
Examples of detriment include being labelled a 'troublemaker', being denied training or promotion, or being made redundant because of supporting a discrimination claim.
In summary, the concept of detriment is crucial in victimisation claims under EqA 2010, and it is assessed from the perspective of the alleged victim, focusing on whether the treatment has reasonably disadvantaged them.
Comentarios