The EAT has ruled that an employee claiming whistleblowing detriment need only show that the protected disclosure played more than a trivial part in the employer's reason for the treatment.
The employer is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that the detriment was in no sense whatever (ignoring trivial influences) on the ground of the protected act. Previous caselaw had suggested that the protected disclosure must be the core reason for the detriment (as it is for whistleblowing dismissal claims).
The employees' detriment claim in this case succeeded where the detriment arose out of an employer trying to deal with a breakdown of relations with colleagues caused by the disclosure. (Fecitt v NHS Manchester, EAT)
Key contacts
Steve Bell
Managing Partner - Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia), Melbourne
Emma Rohsler
Regional Head of Practice (EMEA) - Employment Pensions and Incentives, Paris
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.