Mr S Kuttappan, Friend For the v Mr A O'Neill, Solicitor — 2019

The tribunal heard consolidated claims from Mr Chellappan and Mrs Subramanya against ABM Facility Services Ltd at London Central. The merits hearing concerned direct race discrimination and direct discrimination because of religion or belief under s.13 of the Equality Act 2010, with the tribunal applying the comparator rule in s.23, the burden-shifting provisions in s.136, and the approach in Igen, Laing and Madarassy. It also noted the limitation regime in s.123. At the case management hearing on 10 July 2019, the marital-discrimination and contractual claims for unpaid pay and holiday pay, together with Mrs Subramanya's unfair dismissal claim, were withdrawn and were therefore not considered on the merits.

For Mr Chellappan, the tribunal found that he was not given a full uniform until shortly before the hearing, but accepted the respondent's explanation that this was due to inadvertent oversight and administrative incompetence rather than race or religion. It rejected his evidence that he had spent about £1,200 on replacement trousers and safety shoes, finding no receipts and considering the amount improbable. His other pleaded matters, including the unsuccessful security-job application, alleged abusive behaviour, and promotion refusal, were unsupported, out of time, or not evidenced, and both his race and religion or belief claims were dismissed.

For Mrs Subramanya, the tribunal accepted that Mr Steel's contact with her doctor on 26 September 2018 was inappropriate and that the grievance on that issue was upheld internally. It also found that some concerns about break times, drinking water and the failure to investigate her complaints could have raised an inference of less favourable treatment, but concluded that the respondent rebutted any inference by reference to the later staff complaints, the break-time memo of 15 January 2019, and the sequence of events leading to investigation, suspension on 27 February 2019 and dismissal in March 2019. The tribunal did not find that this conduct was because of race or religion or belief.

The tribunal rejected the remaining allegations that Mrs Subramanya was disproportionately told to clean toilets, told to remove a Bindi, refused a break change to take medicine, or unfairly accused of poor cleaning. It found no evidence that management had engineered the complaints or that the suspension and dismissal were on account of race or religion or belief, and it held that earlier allegations were out of time. The respondent's application for £190 costs over interpreter issues was refused under Rule 76(1)(a), so no monetary award was made.