Questions of evidence, process and decision-making sit at the heart of four Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rulings examined in this month’s review. The cases cover disability discrimination arising from drug testing, the burden of proof in discrimination claims, procedural failings during tribunal proceedings and access to training opportunities.
In partnership with employment law platform LexHR, we look at what these judgments mean for employers and HR professionals, and the practical lessons that can be drawn from each decision.
Although the facts differ considerably, a common thread runs through the cases. Whether dealing with recruitment, disciplinary action, litigation or employee development, employers must be able to show that policies have been applied correctly, decisions are supported by evidence and legal tests have been addressed with care.
The ‘blanket approach’ error
In Clifton Diocese v Miss Janet Parker, a non-Catholic employee was dismissed following a disciplinary process. The Employment Tribunal upheld four heads of religion or belief discrimination, citing added allegations, a rushed hearing, failure to accommodate the claimant’s health, and mocking conduct by an external investigator. The EAT allowed the appeal on three grounds.
First, the tribunal had adopted a “blanket approach” under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, relying on a composite list of criticisms directed overwhelmingly at individuals other than those whose knowledge of the claimant’s religion was relevant at each decision point. Second, it had failed to anchor the inference of discrimination to a person who knew of the protected characteristic at the material time. Third, no proper analysis had been applied to whether the external investigator’s conduct was ‘related to’ religion or belief as required by section 26.
Key learning points
- Each alleged act of less favourable treatment must be linked to a specific individual who was aware of the protected characteristic at the relevant time. A composite list of process failures does not establish the stage-one inference without more.
- Each element of a discrimination or harassment complaint must be assessed individually; employers retain liability for the conduct of external investigators.
- Where a protected characteristic becomes known part-way through a process, the inference of discrimination must be assessed separately at each decision point by reference to who held that knowledge at the relevant time.
Procedural errors in proceedings
In Car Sales Solutions Ltd v Mr V Riekstins, the EAT considered how a tribunal should deal with administrative and other procedural errors arising during proceedings, and whether contaminated findings should be remitted or addressed within the original hearing. The judgment draws a practical distinction between errors capable of remedy within the same proceedings and those requiring a fresh tribunal, and confirms that procedural failures can unwind findings that would otherwise have stood.
Key learning points
- Procedural concerns must be raised at the earliest opportunity; failure to object at the time may limit grounds available on appeal.
- Tribunal case management decisions, however informal, can have binding consequences. The appropriate remedy — remission to the same or a different tribunal — depends on the nature and extent of the irregularity.
- Where procedural errors have contaminated findings, a fresh tribunal may be required; partial remission will not always be sufficient to remedy the unfairness caused.
Fixed-term status and training opportunities
In Komeng v National Highways Ltd, a claimant on a fixed-term contract alleged race and sex discrimination after being excluded from an HR Business Partner training programme. By the time the programme ran he had become a permanent employee, though he had been on a fixed-term contract when the training was originally arranged.
The EAT upheld the tribunal’s dismissal of the claims, confirming it was entitled to find that the exclusion was attributable to the claimant’s fixed-term status at the time the training was scheduled rather than to his race or sex. Critically, the claimant had himself acknowledged in correspondence that he would understand why he had not been offered the training if it had taken place during his fixed-term contract period — which it had. Tribunals must test the employer’s explanation against the facts as found, including the claimant’s own contemporaneous statements.
Key learning points
- Access to training should be documented with decisions linked to objective criteria such as contract type or start date.
- Contemporaneous written communications from claimants can be significant evidence in defending discrimination claims; all such material should be retained.
- When exclusion from an opportunity is challenged as discriminatory, tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer’s stated reason is consistent with the facts as found; objective criteria applied consistently across the workforce provide the strongest defence.
Bottom line for HR
Across disability, religion or belief, procedural fairness, and race and sex discrimination, these decisions reinforce the need for careful decision-making at every stage of the employment relationship. Medical exception policies must be applied properly and consistently. Discrimination claims require a clear analysis of who knew what, and when. Procedural concerns should be addressed promptly before they undermine proceedings. And employers defending discrimination claims will be in the strongest position where decisions are supported by objective criteria and contemporaneous evidence.
This round-up covers selected EAT decisions from early 2026. It is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
William Furney is a Managing Editor at Black and White Trading Ltd based in Kingston upon Hull, UK. He is a prolific author and contributor at Workplace Wellbeing Professional, with over 127 published posts covering HR, employee engagement, and workplace wellbeing topics. His writing focuses on contemporary employment issues including pension schemes, employee health, financial struggles affecting workers, and broader workplace trends.
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
- William Furney
