Mr v Pillai Corporate Office of the House of Lords and Corporate Office of the House of Commons (Operating as the Parliamentary Digital Service) — 2022

Mr Vinod Pillai, of Indian descent, worked for the Parliamentary Digital Service as a Grade A2 Solution Architect from 13 February 2020 until his employment was terminated on 17 March 2021 with pay in lieu of notice on the stated ground that he had failed probation. The claim form included race discrimination and unfair dismissal; the judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim had already been struck out for lack of the two-year qualifying period.

The tribunal rejected the race-related harassment allegation and the direct discrimination allegations based on alleged exclusion from team meetings and alleged racial comments. It found that the alleged comments were not made, that the Claimant had in fact attended the team meetings, and that the missed electronic invitations were accidental and too trivial to amount to a detriment. It also held that the six-month informal appraisal was omitted for both the Claimant and the white comparator, Mr Vega, because of work pressure during the Covid-19 period.

On the remaining discrimination allegations, the tribunal accepted Mr Hay-Campbell's evidence that he had serious and sustained concerns about the Claimant's performance, technical leadership, written output and working relationships, supported by contemporary documents. Those concerns explained the decision to extend probation and later to dismiss. The refusal to change line manager was not shown to be discriminatory, and the comparator case based on Mr Vega failed because there were no concerns about his performance and no evidence that he had been treated more favourably in relation to reporting lines or probation.

The tribunal held that allegations (1), (2) and (4)-(6) were out of time and outside jurisdiction, while allegation (3) failed on the facts rather than on limitation. Allegation (7) was within time but not discriminatory. It dismissed all claims, and noted in its postscript that the failure to hold the six-month appraisals was a significant departure from sound employment relations practice and probably a breach of contract, but that point did not affect the discrimination findings.