Recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) rulings have examined several core areas of employment law, including the integrity of internal appeals, the framing of dismissal reasons, the threshold for discrimination claims and the treatment of religious belief in the workplace. Across four cases, the court considered how tribunals assess fairness, causation and proportionality in everyday disputes.
In this month’s roundup, written in association with employment law platform LexHR, we review decisions on capability dismissals, composite misconduct reasoning, race discrimination claims and the limits of protection for religious belief and its manifestation.
Taken together, the judgments reinforce a consistent message for employers and advisers. Outcomes depend on clear reasoning, careful application of legal tests and properly managed procedures at every stage of the employment relationship.
Failed appeal process can render dismissal unfair
In Milrine v DHL Services Ltd, an HGV driver dismissed for medical incapability after prolonged absence attempted to appeal. The process collapsed: the appointed manager refused to hear the appeal without notice, a replacement failed to attend, and HR left the claimant to organise it himself. The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal fair, but the EAT allowed the appeal and substituted unfair dismissal.
The EAT reaffirmed that the right of appeal is a substantive component of fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, not a procedural afterthought. Following West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton, dismissal and appeal form a single, integrated assessment. Procedural defects at appeal stage cannot be treated as peripheral unless a tribunal makes a specific, evidenced finding that any appeal would have been wholly futile. No such finding existed, and the claimant had not abandoned his appeal.
Key learning points
- The appeal process must be actively managed by the employer; responsibility cannot be moved to the employee, and informality creates risk.
- The futility exception is narrow and must be expressly evidenced, not assumed.
- All appeal arrangements and changes must be confirmed in writing to avoid confusion and procedural failure.
Dismissal reason must reflect employer’s actual reasoning
In Elizabeth Chand v EE Ltd, a long-serving employee was dismissed for gross misconduct based on four incidents characterised as fraud. The tribunal rejected fraud on all counts but upheld dismissal on the basis that one incident alone justified gross misconduct. The EAT allowed the appeal, finding unfair dismissal.
Applying Smith v Glasgow City District Council, the EAT held that the statutory test concerns the actual reason held at dismissal, not a hypothetical alternative. The manager had treated all allegations collectively as fraud and accepted that fewer allegations might have led to a different outcome. Once the fraud rationale failed, the tribunal could not substitute a narrower justification.
Key learning points
- Employers must clearly articulate their actual reason and assess allegations individually; each element of a composite reason must be supportable.
- Allegations of fraud or dishonesty require robust evidence, particularly for long-serving employees.
- The Burchell test applies to the reason as held at dismissal; alternative justifications relate only to remedy, not liability.
Unfair treatment alone does not prove discrimination
In Nowak v Evtec Aluminium Ltd, a Polish employee alleged discrimination and victimisation linked to mistreatment and grievance handling. The tribunal rejected the claims, making adverse credibility findings. The EAT upheld that decision.
The EAT confirmed that tribunals need not follow a rigid two-stage burden analysis if they have properly applied s.136 Equality Act 2010 overall. For victimisation, there must be a causal link between the protected act and the alleged detriment. Poor grievance handling alone is insufficient where it is applied consistently to all employees.
Key learning points
- Well-reasoned credibility findings are unlikely to be disturbed on appeal.
- Poor treatment only becomes discriminatory if causally linked to a protected characteristic or act.
- Consistently poor processes may offer evidential protection, but do not replace the need for proper procedures.
Belief and manifestation must be assessed separately
In Ngole v Touchstone Leeds, a Christian social worker had a job offer withdrawn after historic comments about homosexuality were discovered. The tribunal upheld discrimination for the initial withdrawal but not subsequent decisions. The EAT identified legal errors and remitted parts of the case.
Applying Higgs v Farmor’s School, the EAT stressed the distinction between objection to a belief (always unlawful) and objection to its manifestation (potentially lawful if proportionate). Where manifestation is the issue, the Bank Mellat proportionality test must be applied to each decision individually. The initial withdrawal was flawed because the claimant was not given an opportunity to address concerns, whereas later decisions relied on evidence of risk to vulnerable service users.
Key learning points
- Each recruitment decision after knowledge of a protected belief must be separately assessed.
- The distinction between belief and manifestation must be explicitly applied; reputational concerns alone are insufficient.
- Employers must identify the specific concern, consider less intrusive options, and support decisions with evidence.
Bottom line for HR
Across capability, misconduct, discrimination and religious belief, these decisions emphasise that fairness requires precision at every stage. Appeals must be real and properly managed. Dismissal reasons must reflect the employer’s actual thinking. Unreasonable treatment does not equate to discrimination without causation. And decisions involving protected beliefs require structured, evidence-based proportionality analysis. Shortcuts in reasoning or process carry significant legal risk.
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
