Il fatto che il datore di lavoro - chiamato in giudizio per una asserita discriminazione nei criteri di assunzione - abbia dedotto di aver applicato criteri non discriminatori, ma non abbia  citato come testimone diretto la persona addetta alla selezione e responsabile del rigetto della domanda dell\'attore, non costituisce di per sè prova della discriminazione dovendosi distinguere la condotta processuale e la prova raggiunta, eventualmente anche con mezzi diversi dalla testimonianza in questione.

UK anti-discrimination law - recruitment selection criteria - distribution of the burden of proof - failure to cite as direct witness of the recruiter - relevance - criteria

The change in the previous wording of section 136 (2) of the 2010 Equality Act, from “where … the complainant proves facts” to “if there are facts from which the court could decide”, does not alter the two-stage process for analyzing discrimination complaints in employment cases nor the burden of proof. The fact that the employer - summoned for an alleged discrimination in the recruitment criteria - has inferred that he has applied non-discriminatory criteria but has not cited as a direct witness the person in charge of the selection and responsible for the rejection of the plaintiff\'s application, does not in itself constitute proof of discrimination. There aren’t legal rules about what inference may be drawn from the failure to call a witness; its significance can only be assessed in the context of the case as whole.

.