in person For v Mr S. Hoyle of Croners — 2020

The Claimant joined the Respondent on 8 May 2018 as a probationary 2nd/3rd Line System Administrator and was dismissed on 1 June 2018, with notice paid in lieu. The tribunal found that a 30 May 2018 HR meeting about his passport and right of abode was brief and administrative, not the 26 May 2018 meeting alleged in the claim form, and that there was no evidence Ms McGettigan said the Respondent wanted someone with a British passport.

Applying the burden of proof provisions in s.136 EqA 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Igen, Laing, Madarassy and Hewage, the tribunal held that the Claimant had not established facts from which it could infer direct race discrimination. It found that the passport-related enquiry did not amount to less favourable treatment because of race, and that the short meeting did not amount to harassment related to race.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that on 1 June 2018 the Claimant emailed at 06:06 saying he could not attend work because his daughter was ill, and it found that this fell within s.57A ERA 1996 and that the notice given was as soon as reasonably practicable. However, it found that the leave was only one factor in the Respondent's decision. The principal reason for dismissal was the Respondent's pre-existing view that his communication and probationary performance were unsatisfactory, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.99 ERA 1996 failed. No compensation was awarded.