Ms J Chieke v Savills Management Resources Limited — 2023

Ms J Chieke, who described herself as Black British of Nigerian descent, brought claims of direct race discrimination against Savills Management Resources Limited. Several allegations were withdrawn during the hearing, including allegations 2.2.8, 2.2.9, 2.2.12, 2.2.13 and 2.2.14. The tribunal considered the remaining allegations under sections 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010, applying the burden of proof framework in section 136 and the authorities it cited, and also noted that matters before 19 October 2020 were likely outside time absent a continuing act, which it did not find.

On the desk-coverage and role-boundary issues, the tribunal found that Stacey Mason's concerns in 2017 and February 2019 were reactive to client concerns and were directed at both receptionists rather than at the claimant alone. It accepted that the claimant's white colleague, Ina Vasileva, signed the same job description in February 2019. The tribunal found that the instructions about not being away from the reception desk for long periods were management directions about role expectations, not treatment because of race, and it noted that the claimant did not apply for the supervisor role she said she had been denied.

On Mr Mohammed Hamid's conduct in 2020, the tribunal found that he initially asked the claimant to do the same sort of tasks as white colleagues, and that when she refused he directed those requests to colleagues who were willing to do them. It rejected the allegation that he briefed Diana Cazacu in disparaging terms at the start of her role, and found that the deterioration in the claimant's relationship with Ms Cazacu, including the April and June 2020 incidents and Mr Hamid's comments on 17 July 2020, was explained by the claimant's own communications and conduct rather than by race. It also found that the March 2021 performance review was a careful and balanced appraisal with legitimate areas for improvement.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the direct race discrimination claim in full and made no award. It noted that mediation remained available as a workplace option, but that was outside the formal remedy decision.