In person For the v Mr S Proffit, Solicitor — 2019

The tribunal allowed the claimant's application to amend his claim to add victimisation, applying the Selkent principles and the Presidential Guidance. It found that greater prejudice would be caused to the claimant if the amendment was refused, although the respondent would face a new claim that was prima facie out of time. The claimant, Mr Ashley Benjamin, was employed as a clinical coder and the tribunal accepted that he was black, but it did not accept that the treatment complained of was because of race.

On the direct discrimination allegations, the tribunal rejected the complaints about 8 November 2018 and 6 December 2018. It found that Susan Burch was entitled to ask why the claimant wished to leave early and to require the usual form, and that her tone, while abrupt, had no racial context. On 6 December 2018 it found that the claimant was wearing an Arsenal football shirt and jeans, that the respondent's professional appearance policy applied, and that it was reasonable for Susan Burch to raise the issue because the clothing was inappropriate for work. The tribunal found that Anthony Hollings and Andrew Buck were not actual comparators on the facts found.

On harassment, the tribunal found that the March 2017 complaint about a patient file, the 21 August 2018 comments about low coding numbers, and the 11 January 2019 telephone call about sickness absence were all work-management or performance issues. It held that the conduct was not related to race and was not such as to violate dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. On victimisation, the tribunal found that Susan Burch's mention of the claimant's criminal conviction during the 21 February 2019 grievance interview was made in the context of discussing his general conduct, that the conviction had been openly discussed at work and was not confidential, and that it was not disclosed because he had done a protected act.

The tribunal held that acts before 22 November 2018 were prima facie out of time, found no continuing act, and found no basis on which it was just and equitable to extend time. It concluded that all of the claims were not well founded and dismissed them.