Following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Efobi v Royal Mail Group, claimants in employment tribunals must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination before the burden of proof falls on the respondent to provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the impugned conduct. The two stages are separate. Tribunals cannot draw any inferences from a respondent's explanation (or lack of explanation) when deciding whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination. We argue that, in reaching this decision, the Supreme Court failed to tackle squarely the important normative question at the heart of the dispute: whether there should be constraints on the evidence courts may consider when adjudicating whether there is a prima facie case of discrimination. Had the Supreme Court confronted this normative question, the outcome of the case might have been different.

中文翻译：

---

Efobi 诉皇家邮政集团：无事生非？

继最高法院最近在Efobi诉皇家邮政集团案中作出裁决后，就业法庭的原告必须首先证明存在表面证据确凿的歧视案件，然后举证责任落在被告身上，为被指责的行为提供非歧视性解释。这两个阶段是分开的。在决定是否存在表面证据确凿的歧视案件时，法庭不能从答辩人的解释（或缺乏解释）中得出任何推论。我们认为，在做出这一决定时，最高法院未能正视争议核心的重要规范问题：是否应该是法院在裁定是否存在表面证据确凿的歧视案件时可能考虑的证据限制。如果最高法院面对这个规范性问题，案件的结果可能会有所不同。