EAT Judgment of Clifton Diocese v Parker

EAT Judgment of Clifton Diocese v Parker

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (“EAT”) decision in Clifton Diocese v Parker [2026] EAT 68 provides important clarification on the correct application of the burden of proof in discrimination claims, and reinforces the need to distinguish between unfair treatment and unlawful discrimination.

Background

Ms Parker, a non‑Catholic, was employed as Head of Finance by the Clifton Diocese, a Latin Church diocese of the Catholic Church. Following a deterioration in her relationship with senior management, arising in part from disputes around flexible working after a period of adoption leave where she wished to return on a part-time basis, she was subject to a disciplinary process which started off as performance issues, and then later escalated to allegations of misconduct for which she was ultimately dismissed. The Employment Tribunal (“ET”) upheld her claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal, and further found that she had been subjected to direct discrimination on the basis of her religion or belief discrimination (the claimant’s lack of Catholic Christian religion and/or belief was accepted to be a protected characteristic) in view of the inadequacies of the disciplinary process. A finding of harassment was also upheld in view of a comment made by a member of management during the disciplinary hearing about Mr Parker’s medication for her mental health, which was found to have been in a mocking manner.

The Respondent however appealed the discrimination findings. A key issue before the EAT was whether the ET had correctly applied the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the ET had erred in law by failing to properly identify primary facts from which discrimination could be inferred before shifting the burden to the employer.

In particular, the EAT was critical of the ET’s reliance on the conduct of individuals who were not the alleged perpetrator in order to infer discriminatory motivation, for example, many of the underlying issues related to the actions and conduct of the claimant’s line manager and various other employees, yet the Tribunal’s findings of discrimination were made exclusively against the external investigator without explaining how the actions of others supported an inference against the investigator. In addition, it was found that the ET made no findings as to the religious beliefs or affiliations of the individuals whose conduct was criticised, nor did it determine whether any of those individuals harboured hostility or prejudice toward the claimant on the basis that she was not Catholic. The EAT stated that the correct approach requires tribunals to undertake a structured analysis: identifying the specific act complained of, the individual responsible, and whether there is evidence linking that act to the protected characteristic.

The EAT further emphasised that poor or procedurally unfair treatment does not, on its own, establish a basis for discrimination. While an employer’s failure to provide a clear explanation may be relevant, it cannot substitute for the requirement that a claimant must first establish a prima facie case.

As a result, the findings of discrimination and harassment were set aside and remitted back to the ET for reconsideration. The findings of unfair and wrongful dismissal were not challenged and therefore remain in place.

For employers, this decision highlights that while flawed processes may expose them to unfair dismissal claims, they do not automatically give rise to discrimination liability. For employees on the other hand, it underlines the importance of establishing a clear evidential link between the treatment complained of, and the protected characteristic relied upon.

For further information or to discuss a potential employment law or discrimination claim, please contact our specialist employment solicitors on 0207 3950 5234 or info@rllaw.co.uk. We are ranked as a ‘Leading Firm’ in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners independent guides to the UK Legal Profession.