Case 1802057/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sheun v Northern General Hospital (Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802057/2019
- Decision date
- 7 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Mrs S Robinson, Mr M Firkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sheun
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Sheun, a service support engineer of Chinese ethnic origin, brought harassment, victimisation and race discrimination claims against Northern General Hospital. The direct and indirect race discrimination claims were withdrawn after a preliminary hearing and dismissed by judgment of 5 July 2019. During the December 2019 hearing the victimisation claim was also withdrawn and dismissed separately, leaving the harassment claim for determination.
The tribunal found that the claimant's informal complaint in December 2016 was about Mr Baldwin and Mr Ringrose mimicking Chinese accents, including the pronunciation of Tsing Tao, rather than merely a remark about MSG. It rejected several alleged incidents as not proved, including the alleged use of 'chinks'/'chinky', 'Paki', 'Chinese blood', 'Bangkok la' and the Police Academy complaint, but found that Mr Baldwin had on the balance of probabilities made the Bruce Lee-style noise on 14 December 2018, had made similar noises on other occasions, had mimicked the pronunciation of Tsing Tao, and had mimicked a Chinese accent in the Indiana Jones discussion.
Applying section 26 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the proven incidents were unwanted conduct related to race and that, in the circumstances including the claimant's earlier experiences of racism, it was reasonable for him to regard them as violating his dignity. It rejected the respondent's section 109(4) reasonable steps defence, held that the earlier and later incidents formed a continuing act for time-limit purposes under Hendricks, and recorded no monetary award because the decision was liability-only.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal upheld harassment related to race in part, finding proved the 14 December 2018 martial-arts vocalisation, earlier similar 'Kung Fu' noises, the stereotyped pronunciation of Tsing Tao, and the Indiana Jones accent-mimicry incident. Other alleged incidents were not proved. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Withdrawn during the hearing and dismissed by separate judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was withdrawn after the preliminary hearing and dismissed by the judgment of 5 July 2019. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Indirect race discrimination was withdrawn after the preliminary hearing and dismissed by the judgment of 5 July 2019. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.26(4) Equality Act 2010
- s.40(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- s.109(4) Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.