Mr P Isaacs v London Underground Limited — 2019

The claimant, who is of Afro-Caribbean heritage, complained that managers failed to investigate adequately his complaints about Mr Potter. The tribunal found that Mr Magnante conducted an inadequate investigation: he did not investigate all allegations with relevant witnesses, lost notes, failed to recognise the racial harassment aspect of the effigy allegation, and delayed giving an outcome. The tribunal found that these defects amounted to a detriment, but were caused by lack of experience and training, failure to understand the seriousness and racial context of the complaints, workload pressure, and misunderstanding about whether a formal process was intended, not by the claimant's race.

The tribunal also found that Mr Cain's initial grievance investigation was inadequate because he did not interview key witnesses or Mr Potter and did not scrutinise conflicts in the limited evidence he had obtained. This too amounted to a detriment and caused further delay. However, the tribunal found the reasons were Mr Cain's initial failure to appreciate the seriousness of the complaints, his inexperience in grievance investigations, and reliance on HR advice, not the claimant's race. The tribunal also noted that Mr Cain later conducted a thorough investigation and that the claimant accepted its findings.

On the harassment complaint, the respondent accepted that it recruited Mr Potter despite the claimant's allegation of racial harassment against him, and the tribunal accepted that this was unwanted by the claimant. The tribunal found, however, that the recruitment was not related to the claimant's race: Mr Magnante had concluded after his limited investigation that the complaints were unsubstantiated and did not understand that the claimant was complaining of racial harassment, so his failure to block the appointment was not significantly influenced by race. The claim failed and was dismissed.