In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant, whom the tribunal found to be black, dyslexic, and disabled by severe depression and anxiety, complained about research trips abroad, treatment linked to his dyslexia, and events in September and October 2018 that ended with his resignation on 15 October 2018. The tribunal held the constructive unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time under s.111(2) ERA 1996 after applying the early conciliation extension provisions, and that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged within the adjusted limit. It also held that the direct and indirect race discrimination claims, and the dyslexia-related harassment and victimisation allegations, were out of time, though it still considered their merits.

On the trip issue, the tribunal found that the claimant genuinely feared racial profiling when required to do research in clothes shops abroad and accepted that he raised that concern with Mr Parmar in 2016 and again in January 2018. It rejected the direct race discrimination claim because all Menswear designers were required to go on trips and the difference in Mr Boughalan’s position was explained by his move to a different role. By contrast, the indirect race discrimination claim would have succeeded on the merits: the trip requirement was a provision, criterion or practice; black employees were at a particular disadvantage; the claimant was personally disadvantaged; and the respondent had not justified the requirement because online research was available and was later used by the claimant.

On disability-related allegations, the tribunal found that Mr Parmar’s caps-lock emails and the taping down of the CapsLock key were admitted unwanted conduct related to dyslexia and would have amounted to harassment if they had been in time, but the earlier dyslexia allegations were time-barred. It found no harassment in the depression-related allegations in 2018 about headphones, shouting, being asked to apologise, and refusal of a separate workspace. The victimisation allegations also failed because, although the tribunal found protected acts had been done, the alleged detriments were either not proved or were not caused by those protected acts. On the constructive dismissal issue, the tribunal held that the conduct relied on did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence under Malik, Woods and Omilaju, and that any such breach had in any event been waived before the resignation. No monetary remedy was awarded.