All posts tagged Mr Chagger

Proving Race Discrimination In Employment

By blogger on

Direct race discrimination is when an organisation (or an employee of the organisation) treats a person less favourably than someone else on racial grounds. Proving direct race discrimination is not trivial. The burden of proof is on the employee alleging the discrimination. The UK landmark case of Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins of 2006, where the Employment Tribunal’s finding of race discrimination led (after Abbey National’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to re-instate Mr Chagger to remedy its wrongdoing) to the record 2.8 million compensation order, serves to illustrate the burden of proof in race discrimination. Abbey National (being re-branded as Santander from 2010 and being part of the Banco Santander Group) employed Balbinder Chagger as one of its two Trading Risk Controllers, both managed by Nigel Hopkins. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He earned approximately 100,000 per year. Abbey National dismissed him in 2006, apparently for reasons of redundancy. The redundancy pool of selection was he and the other Trading Risk Controller, a white female.

The employee alleging the race discrimination must prove that his employer, on the balance of probabilities, discriminated against him on racial grounds. On the balance of probabilities means that the alleger needs to prove that it is more likely than not that the employer treated him differently on the grounds of his race; the alleger does not need to prove with absolute certainty that the employer discriminated.

The alleger must prove that he was treated less favourably than someone else (preferably a real comparator, but it could also be a hypothetical comparator) on the grounds of race. This can often be very difficult because the employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race.

Mr Chagger established a case based on facts suggesting there had been race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Chagger had been selected for redundancy and had been dismissed and that a real comparator (the other Trading Risk Controller) had not. The Tribunal noted that there was a difference in race, colour and ethnic origin between Mr Chagger and the comparator. The Tribunal noted the following: Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy was grossly unfair; Mr Hopkins had predetermined that Mr Chagger would be the employee that would be selected for redundancy; Mr Hopkins had used the redundancy selection process as a means to remove Mr Chagger from his position; Mr Hopkins had reduced Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores on matters which no reasonable employer would have taken into account; Abbey National provided no Equal Opportunity training for any of the managers it assigned to hear and decide on Mr Chagger’s issues and complaints of race discrimination; Abbey National failed to answer Mr Chagger’s Race Relations Act Questionnaire; and Abbey National was in breach of the statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment by failing to carry out monitoring, failing to take allegations of race discrimination seriously, and failing to investigate them promptly.

If the alleger can establish a case based on facts suggesting there has been race discrimination, then the burden of proof could shift to the employer to prove otherwise. The employer will then be burdened with the task of having to prove that it would have treated in a similar way someone else who was not of the same racial group as the alleger. If the employer does not have any non-discriminatory explanation, or if the Tribunal finds the explanation inadequate or unsatisfactory, then the Tribunal must infer discrimination on racial grounds.

The Tribunal was satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, Abbey National and Mr Hopkins had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in respect of his dismissal. The Tribunal, therefore, passed the burden of proof to Abbey National and Mr Hopkins to show that there was no discrimination whatsoever in respect of Mr Chagger’s selection for redundancy and dismissal.

The employer will almost always deny that the alleged discrimination had anything to do with race. The explanation that Abbey National and Mr Hopkins put forward was that the selection for redundancy and dismissal was carried out fairly. The Tribunal rejected this explanation for the factors listed above. Abbey National then put forward an alternative explanation, that Mr Hopkins and Mr Chagger could not have had any reasonable working relationship (that is, the difference in treatment suffered by Mr Chagger was for a reason other than racial grounds). The Tribunal could not rely on this explanation; it was an explanation that Mr Hopkins himself did not accept.

Importance Of Race Relation Act Questionnaire Rr65 Demonstrated By Banco Santander Group

By blogger on

The importance of the Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is highlighted by the high-profile Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006) UK legal case, where the Employment Tribunal made a finding of race discrimination, which subsequently led to the record-breaking compensation award of 2.8 million. In 2006, Abbey National Santander Group (the Spanish-owned UK high street bank which will soon be re-branded as Santander, and is part of the Banco Santander Group) terminated Balbinder Chagger’s employment, giving redundancy as the reason. Mr Chagger believed, however, that the real reason behind his dismissal was race discrimination. Santander Abbey National Group employed Mr Chagger (who was of Indian origin) as a Trading Risk Controller and paid him about 100,000 per annum. He reported into Nigel Hopkins.

Employees who believe they have suffered race discrimination at work and are considering pursuing legal action may serve a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 upon the employer. The Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 procedure is set out in the Race Relations Act (Questions and Replies) Order 1977.

The employee serves his questionnaire upon the employer via form RR65. It contains some standard questions, such as to what extend does the employer concur with the employee’s version of events, what is the employer’s version of events, and does the employer accept that the employee has suffered discrimination (and if not, then why not). The employee may attach his own specific questions to the end of the standard questions.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 is not a necessary step in dealing with the discrimination via formal legal proceedings; it is optional. But, it is a step that gives the employee a unique chance to collect evidence in support of his case (because it permits the inclusion of questions of an exploratory nature), as well as, to obtain further information useful in deciding whether to proceed with legal action or not. Therefore, the employee should seriously consider serving a questionnaire, and design the questions to uncover evidence that proves race discrimination which is known only to the employer, uncover fully the employer’s case, and ascertain which facts are accepted by the employer and which are in dispute.

The employer must respond to the questionnaire in writing within a reasonable time period (8 weeks from the date the of receipt). The employer’s answers can be submitted as evidence before an Employment Tribunal. The employer does not have to answer the questionnaire, and cannot be ordered to respond to it by an Employment Tribunal. But, failure to respond within the time limit and/or ambiguous or evasive responses may be held against the employer. Where an Employment Tribunal believes the employer deliberately and without good reason did not respond within the time limit and/or the responses were evasive or ambiguous, the Race Relations Act 1976 allows the Employment Tribunal to draw any adverse inferences it considers just and equitable, including the inference that the employer committed an unlawful act of discrimination. Thus, an Employment Tribunal could make a finding of race discrimination based solely on the adverse inferences it has drawn regarding the questionnaire; although, in reality, it is unlikely to do that, it could decide to take a serious stance on the employer’s failure to respond properly and be persuaded by it, along with other evidence. The chance of the Employment Tribunal drawing adverse inferences will be increased if the employee had asked reasonable questions and had made efforts to chase the employer and encouraged it to respond properly. The employer will not know the consequences of its failures before it faces the Employment Tribunal, at which time it may be too late for the employer to make good any failings. Thus, an employee who avails himself of the questionnaire procedure automatically gains this tactical advantage.

Such was the situation Santander Abbey National had got itself into. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Santander had failed in answering Mr Chagger’s questionnaire. Mr Chagger had asked Santander Abbey National to supply details of legal actions of racial discrimination brought against it since 1 January 2001. Abbey Santander responded with 17 citations of incidents. In respect of 6 of them, dating from 2001 and 2002, Santander Abbey National simply stated that the outcomes of the actions were unknown and that it was unable to obtain information regarding the outcomes during the time period in which the questionnaire had to be responded to; no further answers were ever provided to Mr Chagger. The Employment Tribunal concluded that Santander Abbey National’s response was evasive. Its failure to answer the questionnaire, along with the other evidence in the case, satisfied the Employment Tribunal that Mr Hopkins and Abbey National Santander had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal.

The serving of a Race Relations Act Questionnaire RR65 by the employee does not in itself start off any legal proceedings; the initiation of legal proceedings requires a separate procedure. If no legal proceedings are ever initiated, then the employee’s questionnaire and the employer’s responses remain a private matter between the employer and employee. If the employee is seriously contemplating legal action based on the other evidence that suggests race discrimination, then serving a Race Relations Act Questionnaire would be appropriate, because the employer’s response may help the employee to decide. But, if the employee does not have any serious intentions regarding legal action, then to serve a questionnaire would be inappropriate because doing so may unnecessarily vex the employer and/or the responses may affect the employee emotionally into pursuing a legal action he didn’t intend to pursue.

The Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins case did not end at the Employment Tribunal stage. In 2008, it was appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This year, 2009, the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal (being the second highest court in the land). The Court of Appeal’s List of Hearings showed that the appeal was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records and judgement of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers had reported that the Court of Appeal hearing was only about compensation (not racial discrimination as well). So, this would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Abbey National Santander and Nigel Hopkins has been settled by the EAT (it had upheld the original Employment Tribunal’s finding that Mr Hopkins and Santander Abbey National had discriminated against Mr Chagger on the grounds of race in his dismissal).