Case 1306321/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Wint v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306321/2023
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs W Ellis, Mr J Sharma
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Wint
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that a workplace comment about a voodoo doll with pins, and a manager's failure to intervene, amounted to harassment related to race and religion or belief. The tribunal found that the comment made was not the comment alleged by the claimant, but a generalised comment by Miss Shone about her own exhaustion after covering the claimant's shift.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant is a practising Christian and that Voodoo was contrary to his beliefs. It also considered that Voodoo can be a sensitive subject and that referring to it in the workplace was perhaps ill advised, but concluded the comment was an isolated, poorly judged throwaway comment that was not directed at the claimant.
The tribunal found the conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The harassment complaints related to race and religion or belief were dismissed, so no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal described the complaint as harassment related to race and found it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal described the complaint as harassment related to religion or belief, specifically Voodoo / Voodooism, and found it was not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Equality Act 2010 section 26
- section 109(4) Equality Act 2010
- Heafield
- Dhaliwal
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.