In person For the v Ms C Davis, one of Her Majesty’s counsel — 2022

The claimant brought claims arising from allegations of sexual harassment, race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation, unfair dismissal, holiday pay and breach of contract. The tribunal found the sexual harassment allegation concerned an isolated incident on 11 December 2016 and that the claim, presented on 15 September 2020, was substantially out of time. It declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis and therefore did not make a merits finding on whether Ms L had done what was alleged.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had made protected acts when he complained about Ms L in December 2016, to a female HR contact in early 2017, in the 26 February 2019 meeting, and again on 30 September 2019. It also found those complaints were not made in bad faith. However, many of the pleaded detriments were withdrawn, were found not to amount to detriments, or failed because the claimant did not prove a causal link between the protected acts and the treatment relied upon. The tribunal found the warnings, attendance management, occupational health arrangements and related disciplinary steps were driven by absence and conduct issues, not by victimisation.

On race claims, the tribunal rejected most of the direct race discrimination allegations on the facts, including the bonus claims, the desk allocation complaint, the team meeting complaint, the printed-texts allegation, the 'coloured' allegations, and the allegation that Mr Le Prado made the 'black bastard' remark. It found that the 'monkey boy' allegation would otherwise have amounted to less favourable treatment because of race, but that allegation was out of time and not saved by a continuing act or a just and equitable extension. On racial harassment, the tribunal found that the mid-2017 list of offensive racial words and the 'monkey boy' remark were unwanted conduct capable of creating an offensive environment, but both complaints were out of time; the remaining harassment allegations failed.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief that the claimant had committed gross misconduct in relation to his aggressive and threatening behaviour on 30 September 2019. It held that the investigation and disciplinary process were reasonable, that the claimant had been given opportunities to participate and provide representations, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn after the respondent's evidence that 11.5 days' holiday had been paid in the final salary. The breach of contract claim failed because the contract made participation in the permanent health insurance scheme subject to the scheme's terms and the respondent was not contractually required to secure payment of the insurer's benefits.