In person v Respondent — 2020

The claimant brought a direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 after disciplinary action was taken in relation to incidents on 1 February 2017 and 16 February 2017, followed by suspension and a written warning. He said he had been treated less favourably because he is British Pakistani. The tribunal found the case on the balance of probabilities and applied the burden-shifting approach in section 136(2) Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited.

The tribunal found the workplace was racially diverse and that the claimant had worked there for many years without previously raising race concerns. It preferred the evidence of the respondent's witnesses to the claimant's evidence, and found that his dealings with supervisors were consistently difficult. It rejected his reliance on Mr Sutcliffe as a comparator because Mr Sutcliffe had materially different circumstances, including Access to Work support and a pattern of making up time when late. It also found Mr Brooksbank, as a supervisor, was entitled to challenge the claimant's conduct, and there was no evidence beyond the claimant's own account that Mr Brooksbank had been sarcastic first.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was subjected to treatment within section 39 Equality Act 2010, including a report that he had attempted to leave work early and the allegation that he refused to comply with a reasonable management instruction on 16 February 2017. However, it found that race played no part in those reports, that the respondent had a non-discriminatory explanation based on the claimant's behaviour, and that the disciplinary charges had real substance. It held that the written warning was justified and dismissed the claim in full.