Mr M Weinreb v Online Travel Training Group Ltd Heard partly in person and partly via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2021

In the liability judgment sent on 6 May 2021 after hearings on 21, 22, 26, 27 and 28 April 2021, the tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct discrimination and harassment but upheld victimisation. The issues included direct discrimination on race, sex and perceived sexual orientation, harassment related to perceived sexual orientation and/or sex, and victimisation arising from the claimant's grievance of 19 May 2019 and the later appeal and dismissal process.

On the direct discrimination complaints, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been subjected to less favourable treatment in the incidents listed, including comments by Patricia Andrade and Louise Honan, but held that there was insufficient evidence that the treatment was because of race, sex or perceived sexual orientation. It treated the removal of systems privileges and the commission error as business matters, and said that the broader "banter" often crossed the line of acceptable behaviour without being shown to be discriminatory.

The harassment complaints were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the conduct was unwanted and said that Patricia Andrade in particular bullied the claimant, with interactions that were aggressive and, at times, unpleasant, but it did not have sufficient evidence to connect that conduct to perceived sexual orientation or sex. It also found that Julia Feuell's preference for Patricia Andrade's account was more likely to reflect the long working relationship between them than their being white females.

The victimisation claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the formal grievance dated 19 May 2019, together with further allegations raised during the investigation, were protected acts. It held that the grievance not being upheld was not itself victimisation, but that Julia Feuell banging on the table at the grievance outcome meeting, the invitation to a second employment review meeting with no grounds specified, and the dismissal on 2 July 2019 were detriments because the claimant had raised discrimination allegations. The tribunal found that the major factor in choosing dismissal rather than a warning was the fact that he had raised allegations of discrimination.

At the remedy hearing on 14 July 2021, the tribunal awarded financial losses of £22,075.16 before the 7.5% ACAS uplift of £1,605.00, injury to feelings of £12,000 (£6,000 pre-dismissal and £6,000 on dismissal), total interest of £3,854.41, and grossing up of £506.91. The total award was £40,041.48. The prescribed element was £4,463.68 attributable to 18 April 2020 to 24 May 2021, and the amount above the prescribed element was £35,577.80.