[2025] EAT 49Appeal allowed

Loomis UK Ltd

v Mr Rafiqul Islam

28 February 2025·Employment Appeal Tribunal·England & Wales

Respondent

Loomis UK Ltd

All cases →

Decision date

28 February 2025

Tribunal

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Decision Text

Full PDF

Judgment approved by the court Mr Rafiqul Islam v Loomis UK Ltd © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2025] EAT 49 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EAT 49 Case No: EA-2023-000267-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 28 February 2025 Before: MARCUS PILGERSTORFER KC DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: MR RAFIQUL ISLAM Appellant - and - LOOMIS UK LTD Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Rad Kohanzad (acting as Pro Bono Counsel) for the Appellant Julie Duane (instructed by Actons Solicitors) for the Respondent Hearing date: 28 February 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court Mr R Islam v Loomis UK Ltd © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2025] EAT 49 SUMMARY Religion or Belief Discrimination: section 136 Equality Act 2010 The Claimant was selected for redundancy in phase 2 of a programme of redundancies. He was scored against an agreed matrix but did not achieve a sufficient number of points to reach the threshold applied by the respondent. He was dismissed. The Tribunal found the dismissal procedurally and substantively fair. The Claimant maintained his selection for redundancy amounted to direct discrimination because of his Islamic faith. The Tribunal dismissed that complaint. On appeal, the Claimant argued the Tribunal had failed to apply the burden of proof provisions contained in section 136 Equality Act 2010 and had failed to consider whether numerical evidence about the selection exercise was sufficient to shift the burden to the Respondent. Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) Although the Tribunal had not referred expressly to section 136 Equality Act 2010, or the judicial guidance relating to it, it had in substance considered whether the Claimant had made out a prima facie

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.