Mr R Meshram First v Tata Consultancy Services Limited Second Respondent: Entserv UK Limited — 2020

The Claimant brought claims against two Respondents arising from his recruitment and subsequent dismissal by the Second Respondent (Entserv) after his earlier employment with the First Respondent (TCS) had ended. Prior to the hearing the Claimant withdrew all claims against TCS (case 2203730/2019), which were dismissed upon withdrawal. The Tribunal therefore considered only the claims against Entserv under case 2203448/2019, namely direct race discrimination (Indian national origin) and victimisation, in respect of the Claimant's dismissal and the failure to progress his appeal.

On the direct race discrimination complaints, the Tribunal found the Claimant had not proved facts from which it could conclude, absent an explanation, that the treatment occurred because of race, so the burden of proof did not shift under s.136 EqA. In any event, the Tribunal found that the same Mr Nagra who had recently recruited the Claimant to a senior role and arranged a signing-on bonus also took the decision to dismiss him, which the panel did not find plausible to attribute to race. The delays in dealing with the appeal were attributed to Mr Nagra's failure to forward it on and to the Second Respondent's procedures rather than to the Claimant's national origin.

On victimisation, although the Tribunal accepted that the Second Respondent was aware of the Claimant's earlier discrimination proceedings before deciding to terminate his employment, it found the reason for dismissal was Mr Nagra's view that the Claimant had been dishonest during the recruitment process (in particular by presenting a CV and LinkedIn profile suggesting he remained employed by TCS). The Tribunal found no causal link between the protected act and either the dismissal or the failure to progress the appeal. All complaints against the Second Respondent were dismissed and it was unnecessary to consider the s.109(4) EqA statutory defence.