Mr G McKetty, Consultant For v Mr Z Malik, trainee solicitor — 2020

The tribunal first decided a preliminary issue about status under s.83 of the Equality Act 2010. Applying the authorities it cited, including Hashwani, Halawi and Windle, it found that when the Claimant was working on assignment at Harrods she was employed by the First Respondent under a contract personally to do work. The tribunal relied on the written terms of engagement, the payment and holiday arrangements, PAYE and National Insurance deductions, and the handbook provisions governing conduct and Equality Act matters.

On the facts, the Claimant worked at the Second Respondent's Harrods counter from 17 November 2017. After an incident on 11 May 2018 involving lateness and raised voices, she later reported a conversation in which Aida said that Diana had made a racially derogatory comment about the Second Respondent's area manager, Tate Torongo. On 4 June 2018 she sent a grievance directly to Ms Wilson at the Second Respondent, copied to Mr Torongo. The First Respondent then investigated, held disciplinary proceedings on 8 June 2018, and removed the Claimant from its register, with the appeal outcome confirming that decision.

The tribunal held that the grievance about the alleged comment was a protected act for the purposes of victimisation and was not made in bad faith. It applied section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, Saad and Martin, but found that the detriment was caused by the manner in which the complaint was made, namely that it was raised directly with the client rather than first with the First Respondent, not by the protected act itself. For the same reason, it dismissed the direct discrimination claim, which was framed as discrimination by association because of Mr Torongo's race, and the harassment claim. It found that the dismissal was not because of race and that the relevant conduct was not related to race. All complaints were dismissed and the provisional remedy hearing was vacated.