ET case: Employer has not released all documents in disclosure.. what to do? HELP!

SChitmehard

robatwork said:

Entertaining thread - do keep us updated.

Although your "friend" sounds very ill advised to go to an ET based on the paltry evidence he has. As his friend you would be best to advise him to withdraw and move on, or get a bit of a humping at the hearing.

it got settled out of court, employer paid around £10k to my friend. my friend was getting too stressed with it all and took it. so it's always worth ignoring the naysayers on here and giving it a try.

LeedsGirl94 said:

I had similar in my ET whereby not a single thing was produced that I hadn't already been copied in on; as enraging as it was, with discrimination you need to show a prima facie case and it is for the employer to then disprove it.

Your friend doesn't need every bit of evidence on earth, just enough pieces to suggest the overall picture. If they can find those pieces you can flip the non-disclosure on it's head and say XYZ show A and the respondents have failed to disclose anything to the contrary therefore we ask inferences to be drawn that A is true etc.

yep, this is how it works.

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

they should and judge can order them to do it (see krusty101 below), but usually they drag their heels and so non-disclosure can be used against them as it shows they have something to hide, otherwise there is no real reason to hide this info from the tribunal/judge and LeedsGirl make the right case above.

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

^ This.

Marcon said:

SChitmehard said:

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

I read a previous ET case on pay discrimination and the employer was required to submit details. They did for a couple of employees but not for all/most of the employees that worked in the same post/job title and lost.

When you prepare a discrim case, you mention the poeple you are comparing yourself to to show a difference of treatment . Now if you can't get info (rota/pay/etc) how can you compare? Read the link about disclosure I put above. They are meant to release more info than if you have done a DPA request. But in my friends case, it's just his personnel file and that's pretty much it.

Googling is not a substitute for hard knowledge of the actual process. Has your friend been in contact with ACAS, as suggested (repeatedly)?

Definately worth getting proper legal advice which he did and got a settlement and took it. These are complex cases and need a specialist employment law solicitor to tease out the issues and forums full of random people are not really suitable people for advice! 

Undervalued

SChitmehard said:

robatwork said:

Entertaining thread - do keep us updated.

Although your "friend" sounds very ill advised to go to an ET based on the paltry evidence he has. As his friend you would be best to advise him to withdraw and move on, or get a bit of a humping at the hearing.

it got settled out of court, employer paid around £10k to my friend. my friend was getting too stressed with it all and took it. so it's always worth ignoring the naysayers on here and giving it a try.

LeedsGirl94 said:

I had similar in my ET whereby not a single thing was produced that I hadn't already been copied in on; as enraging as it was, with discrimination you need to show a prima facie case and it is for the employer to then disprove it.

Your friend doesn't need every bit of evidence on earth, just enough pieces to suggest the overall picture. If they can find those pieces you can flip the non-disclosure on it's head and say XYZ show A and the respondents have failed to disclose anything to the contrary therefore we ask inferences to be drawn that A is true etc.

yep, this is how it works.

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

they should and judge can order them to do it (see krusty101 below), but usually they drag their heels and so non-disclosure can be used against them as it shows they have something to hide, otherwise there is no real reason to hide this info from the tribunal/judge and LeedsGirl make the right case above.

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

^ This.

Marcon said:

SChitmehard said:

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

I read a previous ET case on pay discrimination and the employer was required to submit details. They did for a couple of employees but not for all/most of the employees that worked in the same post/job title and lost.

When you prepare a discrim case, you mention the poeple you are comparing yourself to to show a difference of treatment . Now if you can't get info (rota/pay/etc) how can you compare? Read the link about disclosure I put above. They are meant to release more info than if you have done a DPA request. But in my friends case, it's just his personnel file and that's pretty much it.

Googling is not a substitute for hard knowledge of the actual process. Has your friend been in contact with ACAS, as suggested (repeatedly)?

Definately worth getting proper legal advice which he did and got a settlement and took it. These are complex cases and need a specialist employment law solicitor to tease out the issues and forums full of random people are not really suitable people for advice! 

So how much did this "proper legal advice" cost your "friend" and was the claimed £10K settlement nett of costs?

SChitmehard

Undervalued said:

SChitmehard said:

robatwork said:

Entertaining thread - do keep us updated.

Although your "friend" sounds very ill advised to go to an ET based on the paltry evidence he has. As his friend you would be best to advise him to withdraw and move on, or get a bit of a humping at the hearing.

it got settled out of court, employer paid around £10k to my friend. my friend was getting too stressed with it all and took it. so it's always worth ignoring the naysayers on here and giving it a try.

LeedsGirl94 said:

I had similar in my ET whereby not a single thing was produced that I hadn't already been copied in on; as enraging as it was, with discrimination you need to show a prima facie case and it is for the employer to then disprove it.

Your friend doesn't need every bit of evidence on earth, just enough pieces to suggest the overall picture. If they can find those pieces you can flip the non-disclosure on it's head and say XYZ show A and the respondents have failed to disclose anything to the contrary therefore we ask inferences to be drawn that A is true etc.

yep, this is how it works.

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

they should and judge can order them to do it (see krusty101 below), but usually they drag their heels and so non-disclosure can be used against them as it shows they have something to hide, otherwise there is no real reason to hide this info from the tribunal/judge and LeedsGirl make the right case above.

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

^ This.

Marcon said:

SChitmehard said:

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

I read a previous ET case on pay discrimination and the employer was required to submit details. They did for a couple of employees but not for all/most of the employees that worked in the same post/job title and lost.

When you prepare a discrim case, you mention the poeple you are comparing yourself to to show a difference of treatment . Now if you can't get info (rota/pay/etc) how can you compare? Read the link about disclosure I put above. They are meant to release more info than if you have done a DPA request. But in my friends case, it's just his personnel file and that's pretty much it.

Googling is not a substitute for hard knowledge of the actual process. Has your friend been in contact with ACAS, as suggested (repeatedly)?

Definately worth getting proper legal advice which he did and got a settlement and took it. These are complex cases and need a specialist employment law solicitor to tease out the issues and forums full of random people are not really suitable people for advice! 

So how much did this "proper legal advice" cost your "friend" and was the claimed £10K settlement nett of costs?

employers paid my friends legal fees so he got the full £10k.

EnPointe

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

1 and 3 are definitely problematic  unless  there is a  published  pay scale and job  evaluation scheme  , the references   thing is definitely problematic as the public intrerest  angle would have ot outweigh  the rights of  others to privacy 

2  may be of 'public' record in that work rosters  or   shifts / teams / watches  someone  belongs to is a matter of  'public' (within the business) record  on the rostering system   ( as a team member i can see the team i'm part of , the other teams at my base site  and  theams at the sites i'm likely to work from at least from my start w date with the organisation )

Jude57

SChitmehard said:

robatwork said:

Entertaining thread - do keep us updated.

Although your "friend" sounds very ill advised to go to an ET based on the paltry evidence he has. As his friend you would be best to advise him to withdraw and move on, or get a bit of a humping at the hearing.

it got settled out of court, employer paid around £10k to my friend. my friend was getting too stressed with it all and took it. so it's always worth ignoring the naysayers on here and giving it a try.

LeedsGirl94 said:

I had similar in my ET whereby not a single thing was produced that I hadn't already been copied in on; as enraging as it was, with discrimination you need to show a prima facie case and it is for the employer to then disprove it.

Your friend doesn't need every bit of evidence on earth, just enough pieces to suggest the overall picture. If they can find those pieces you can flip the non-disclosure on it's head and say XYZ show A and the respondents have failed to disclose anything to the contrary therefore we ask inferences to be drawn that A is true etc.

yep, this is how it works.

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

they should and judge can order them to do it (see krusty101 below), but usually they drag their heels and so non-disclosure can be used against them as it shows they have something to hide, otherwise there is no real reason to hide this info from the tribunal/judge and LeedsGirl make the right case above.

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

^ This.

Marcon said:

SChitmehard said:

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

I read a previous ET case on pay discrimination and the employer was required to submit details. They did for a couple of employees but not for all/most of the employees that worked in the same post/job title and lost.

When you prepare a discrim case, you mention the poeple you are comparing yourself to to show a difference of treatment . Now if you can't get info (rota/pay/etc) how can you compare? Read the link about disclosure I put above. They are meant to release more info than if you have done a DPA request. But in my friends case, it's just his personnel file and that's pretty much it.

Googling is not a substitute for hard knowledge of the actual process. Has your friend been in contact with ACAS, as suggested (repeatedly)?

Definately worth getting proper legal advice which he did and got a settlement and took it. These are complex cases and need a specialist employment law solicitor to tease out the issues and forums full of random people are not really suitable people for advice! 

That's a good outcome for your friend. I'd be willing to bet, though, that the employer made no admission of liability and that the settlement was conditional upon that. While it's a 'win' for your friend, the full hearing would have cost the employer considerably more in staff costs and legal fees, win or lose, than £10,000 plus solicitor's fees for the settlement agreement. Hopefully your friend's solicitor was able to negotiate a neutral reference for your friend, too, as part of the settlement agreement.

I'd add that the many respected posters who took time to respond to this thread deserve better than to be sniped at because you think they were wrong. This is an open forum where members of the public are free to post their opinions. If anyone wants a professional, legal opinion, they are free to obtain it from a suitably qualified professional, and to pay the necessary fee.

SChitmehard

Jude57 said:

SChitmehard said:

robatwork said:

Entertaining thread - do keep us updated.

Although your "friend" sounds very ill advised to go to an ET based on the paltry evidence he has. As his friend you would be best to advise him to withdraw and move on, or get a bit of a humping at the hearing.

it got settled out of court, employer paid around £10k to my friend. my friend was getting too stressed with it all and took it. so it's always worth ignoring the naysayers on here and giving it a try.

LeedsGirl94 said:

I had similar in my ET whereby not a single thing was produced that I hadn't already been copied in on; as enraging as it was, with discrimination you need to show a prima facie case and it is for the employer to then disprove it.

Your friend doesn't need every bit of evidence on earth, just enough pieces to suggest the overall picture. If they can find those pieces you can flip the non-disclosure on it's head and say XYZ show A and the respondents have failed to disclose anything to the contrary therefore we ask inferences to be drawn that A is true etc.

yep, this is how it works.

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

they should and judge can order them to do it (see krusty101 below), but usually they drag their heels and so non-disclosure can be used against them as it shows they have something to hide, otherwise there is no real reason to hide this info from the tribunal/judge and LeedsGirl make the right case above.

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

^ This.

Marcon said:

SChitmehard said:

Bradden said:

krusty101 said:

Make an application to the ET if you think they are withholding information. 

The problem is that the OP beleives  they should be provided this:

(1) pay details for members of staff of different race/gender
(2) work rosters of different race/gender
(3) references this manager completed for other staff of different race/gender

I'm doubt the emloyer is obliged to give this information.

I read a previous ET case on pay discrimination and the employer was required to submit details. They did for a couple of employees but not for all/most of the employees that worked in the same post/job title and lost.

When you prepare a discrim case, you mention the poeple you are comparing yourself to to show a difference of treatment . Now if you can't get info (rota/pay/etc) how can you compare? Read the link about disclosure I put above. They are meant to release more info than if you have done a DPA request. But in my friends case, it's just his personnel file and that's pretty much it.

Googling is not a substitute for hard knowledge of the actual process. Has your friend been in contact with ACAS, as suggested (repeatedly)?

Definately worth getting proper legal advice which he did and got a settlement and took it. These are complex cases and need a specialist employment law solicitor to tease out the issues and forums full of random people are not really suitable people for advice! 

That's a good outcome for your friend. I'd be willing to bet, though, that the employer made no admission of liability and that the settlement was conditional upon that. While it's a 'win' for your friend, the full hearing would have cost the employer considerably more in staff costs and legal fees, win or lose, than £10,000 plus solicitor's fees for the settlement agreement. Hopefully your friend's solicitor was able to negotiate a neutral reference for your friend, too, as part of the settlement agreement.

I'd add that the many respected posters who took time to respond to this thread deserve better than to be sniped at because you think they were wrong. This is an open forum where members of the public are free to post their opinions. If anyone wants a professional, legal opinion, they are free to obtain it from a suitably qualified professional, and to pay the necessary fee.

It's was a settlement so of course no admission of liability, but you KNOW this. £10K Beats walking away with nothing...

Not sniping, but people need real legal advice, to many random people on here who don't know employment law and their "advice" can be the opposite of helpful especially when they tell people they have no case or that they have been working less than 2 years so have no rights. There was one forum member on here whose name began with a rhyme of "Pill" who had knowledge but was very hostile and seemed to give the wrong advice on purpose a number of times. When I caught her out on it she said that she is not trying to help on purpose. When I pointed this out, she had my posts deleted.

LinLui

I have no idea what the OP is referring to, but I do wonder, if they have such a low opinion of the site / advice, why on earth they are bothering to post here. It's a public forum yes, and anyone can post - they may or may not be accurate / factual in what they post, but that also applies to the OP. There is no way of verifying anything they say or accuse people of. But if they don't like what they are told, and don't trust it, then not being on the site is the obvious answer. Sniping at others (and yes, you are sniping) and unsubstantiated allegations against others is not helping anyone. There is no way of verifying anything anyone says - and that includes the OP, whose hostility suggests that they have an agenda just like they accuse others of having. 

BTW - lawyers have also been known to be "wrong". If there were such a thing as a "legal slam dunk" there wouldn't be lawyers. Getting a settlement is great for your friend, but that does not invalidate the suggestion that there is no legal case. Not everyone can afford "real legal advice", and not all "real legal advice" will result in a "win", even when they suggest it is likely. 

LightFlare

The info given at best is third hand and lacking in much of the real info and context that will be available to a tribunal etc

Hence, most posters can only  respond with their best guess and advice from their experiences based on the limited details that are provided.

They will occasionally be wrong, but I would guess on balance the info given is true and realistic