in person For the v Respondent — 2019

At this preliminary hearing on 18 and 19 September 2019, the tribunal dealt with strike out and deposit applications after an earlier oral judgment had dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. The claimant brought race and disability discrimination complaints, including harassment, victimisation and a reasonable adjustment allegation. The tribunal referred to the claimant as British Afghani, noted that he relied on mental impairments, neck and back problems, and a hereditary fingernail condition, and found there was no medical evidence that the fingernail condition was a disability. It considered strike out and deposit order principles under rules 37 and 39, with reference to Anyanwu, Ezsias and Van Rensburg, and cited the statutory definitions in sections 6, 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal allowed part of allegation 1 to proceed as race harassment, finding that remarks about the claimant's DWP experience and B2 grade could be linked to his ethnicity and CPS career progress. It dismissed the parts of that allegation said to refer to positive opportunities for ethnic minorities. It also allowed allegation 4 to continue only on payment of a £50 deposit, treating the alleged racist remarks about ethnic minorities and crime as arguable but not strong. Allegation 9, concerning refusal of a winter parking space as a reasonable adjustment for the claimant's neck and back disability, was allowed to proceed; the tribunal noted that Occupational Health had recognised that disability and that the claimant had identified the relevant PCP as the practice of allocating parking spaces without review or revision.

The remaining allegations were struck out. Allegation 2, about being forced to mediate with another employee, was found to have no connection to any protected characteristic. Allegation 3, concerning remarks about the claimant's fingernails, failed because the claimant had not established that the hereditary condition amounted to a disability. Allegation 5 failed because, without proving disability, the claimant could not show a protected act for victimisation. Allegations 6, 7 and 8 were also struck out because the tribunal found no pleaded link to race or disability and, in the case of allegation 7, the claim depended on speculation about what had been disclosed. No compensation award was made in this judgment; the only monetary order recorded was the £50 deposit for allegation 4.