Claim under Equality tribunal by employee

[dark horse]

Does anyone know or have experience of hearings under the equality tribunal? A employee is making a few claims all of which are fabricated against my parents but how does one prove that these are false? It is his word against theirs.

Do the mediators always side with the employee in these cases ( where there is no proof, just him saying they did things to him ) as they are deemed the "vulnerable ones"?

This is stressing my parents out big time. They are past retirement age and I'm tempted for them to just try pay him off so that they aren't under all this pressure. But then when they did nothing wrong it seems ridiculous to just let him win.

But then if the mediator sides with the employee they have 2 solicitor fees and I assume, a larger payout if that is what is recommended, which they can't afford.

There is a solicitor on the case but we don't feel she is good enough so we need to change.

Any advise or previous experience of these sort of cases would be appreciated.

 

[Raging Bull]

You dont have tonuse solicitor, costs are not recoverable. Saying that you neeed to weigh up severity of case, allegations etc to protect yourself from spurious claims. The process is laid out on a website it takes 3 years to go through so chances are it will be dropped unless the other party is very motivated

 

[RainyDay]

Changing solicitor mid-stream is likely to be expensive. You'll be paying off the original solicitor and paying for a new one to read into the brief. Are you really, really sure you need to do this? Have you shared your concerns with your existing solicitor and given her a chance to fix them?

You can read some past decisions of the Tribunal at

Like any Court, it does not consistently take one or other side. Sometimes the employee wins and sometimes the employer wins. Many cases in these tribunals come down to 'he said, she said' type arguments, so the Tribunal is well used to having to make a judgement about which side is more credible when giving evidence.

 

[Art]

You will see by reviewing these decisions, that the employer generally wins. It is different to an unfair dismissal case where the employer has to prove that the dismissal was fair. In an equality case, it is up to the claimant to prove that he was discriminated against. This is usually very difficult to prove which is why in the majority of cases, the employer wins.

 

[RainyDay]

You will see by reviewing these decisions, that the employer generally wins.

A quick review of shows 4 out of 10 cases won by the employee. Are you suggesting that this ratio is not typical?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

YThis is usually very difficult to prove which is why in the majority of cases, the employer wins.

A quick review of shows 4 out of 10 cases won by the employee. Are you suggesting that this ratio is not typical?

Are you not proving his point?

4 out of 10 were won by the employee, so the employer won 6 out of 10. That is a majority.

In the case of an elderly couple, I would tend to let them defend the case themselves with a solicitor in the background advising them. If the claim has no basis, it's likely that the Equality Officer would probably believe a nice elderly couple.

I would say that the EOs have experience of baseless claims and can discriminate between the genuine claimants and the scammers.

The legal fees can often be higher than the awards. Do we know how much the guy is actually claiming or does the Equality Officer make the decision?

 

[RainyDay]

Are you not proving his point?

4 out of 10 were won by the employee, so the employer won 6 out of 10. That is a majority.

It's a majority all right, but a fairly slim one. It would meet my own definition of 'employer generally wins'.

In the case of an elderly couple, I would tend to let them defend the case themselves with a solicitor in the background advising them. If the claim has no basis, it's likely that the Equality Officer would probably believe a nice elderly couple.

I would say that the EOs have experience of baseless claims and can discriminate between the genuine claimants and the scammers.

The legal fees can often be higher than the awards. Do we know how much the guy is actually claiming or does the Equality Officer make the decision?

All good advice there.

 

[Art]

A quick review of shows 4 out of 10 cases won by the employee. Are you suggesting that this ratio is not typical?

Sad to see that the obsession some posters have with trying to prove others wrong continues. Not sure what 10 cases you picked here but I looked through all 25 of the cases from DEC - E2013 -100 to DEC -2013 - 124 and the employees won in only three cases which was 12% of the total. If you care to look through the rest of the cases, I'm sure you will find a similar trend - it is certainly no where near the 40% that you are intimating.

The Equality Officer makes the decision but the claimant will generally look for the maximum of two years salary which is very, very rarely awarded.

 

[RainyDay]

Sad to see that the obsession some posters have with trying to prove others wrong continues.

Pots and black kettles spring to mind. I looked at 10 cases, you looked at 25 and you call me 'obsessed'?

Not sure what 10 cases you picked here but I looked through all 25 of the cases from DEC - E2013 -100 to DEC -2013 - 124 and the employees won in only three cases which was 12% of the total. If you care to look through the rest of the cases, I'm sure you will find a similar trend - it is certainly no where near the 40% that you are intimating.

I looked at the first 10 cases on the day that I posted the comment - 4 out of the 10 were won by the employee on that day.

I checked the of the Equality Tribunal, which was probably the final year that it operated independently. It shows that for 2010, about 25% of judged claims were won by the employee, and in 2011, about 20% of judged claims were won by the employee - a substantial number in each case.

You, or the OP, can take it or leave it - I've no skin in the game. But I'd suggest that the OP relies on more than an unsubstantiated claim that the employer generally wins before deciding what to do.