Claimant v Respondent — 2021

The claimant joined the respondent's UK cyber range team on 15 April 2019. The tribunal found that by May 2019 Mr A was the claimant's day-to-day manager. It accepted that there were communication difficulties in a small new team learning a new technology, and that the respondent had invested £500,000 in the cyber range. The claimant resigned on 3 July 2019 after the 2 July 2019 workplace argument, having earlier been off work with gastroenteritis and having attended demonstrations in June 2019.

On the direct race discrimination allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's core case. It found that many of the alleged incidents did not occur, and that the conduct that did occur had non-discriminatory explanations: Mr A was directing the claimant to use the cyber range machines, asking him to carry out tasks, checking on progress, or dealing with technical and training issues. The tribunal found that the security pass issued with a Country X flag reflected UKSV protocols, not less favourable treatment, and held that the respondent's treatment of the claimant was in no sense whatsoever because of race.

On harassment, the tribunal held that the only incident capable of amounting to unwanted conduct was repeated criticism of the claimant's use of a laptop. It found that this was not related to race, because Mr A was trying to get the team to use the cyber range machines for imminent demonstrations. The tribunal therefore found no racial harassment. It also rejected the claimant's additional allegations, including alleged surveillance, comments about M15/M16, the router, the coffee mug, and the coat pocket, because they were not proved on the balance of probabilities.

The constructive dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal found no breach of s.13 or s.26 Equality Act 2010 and no act by the respondent that destroyed or seriously damaged the claimant's confidence in it. It noted that the respondent invited the claimant to withdraw his resignation, investigated the complaints thoroughly through Mr C, and made learning-point recommendations. The tribunal concluded that the claimant's anxiety about working in this industry had affected his perception, but that the respondent had not unfairly dismissed him.