Case 2216399/2023 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Respondent — 2025

Case reference: 2216399/2023
Decision date: 7 May 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge G Hodgson
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms S Aslett, Ms E Ali

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Claim one (2216399/2023) alleged direct race discrimination arising from unsuccessful applications for promotion, a salary increase, unanswered emails, and a performance review. The tribunal held those allegations were out of time and refused to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010, noting the claimant had not given a reason for the delay and had known for years that discrimination claims could be brought.

In any event, the tribunal rejected the merits of claim one. It found the claimant was allowed through to interview for the first two roles, but his applications lacked relevant experience and his interviews were unsuccessful. For the head of customer experience and head of products roles, it accepted that external sift processes identified weak applications and limited relevant experience. It also found the annual salary review was carried out under a policy applied to all employees, and that there was no factual basis for the allegations about unanswered emails or a discriminatory failure to complete a performance review.

In claim two (2217762/2024), the tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant because of conduct on the 8 May 2023 Teams call, when he was wearing nothing from the waist down and his genitals were visible. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell approach, and the band of reasonable responses test in Iceland Frozen Foods, it held the respondent had an honest belief on reasonable grounds and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It accepted the dismissal decision was open to a reasonable employer, including in light of the claimant's inconsistent account, the recovered video, and the disciplinary history.

The tribunal also dismissed the race discrimination allegations in claim two. It found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred in relation to the complaint handling, disciplinary scheduling, public-holiday allegation, or dismissal. On wrongful dismissal, it held the claimant had been in fundamental breach of contract and that the respondent was entitled to accept that breach and dismiss without notice. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Claim one. The tribunal held all race discrimination allegations were out of time, with the primary limitation period expiring before 5 June 2023 and the claim presented on 13 November 2023. It refused to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010. In any event, it rejected the merits of the promotion, salary, email, and performance-review allegations, finding the claimant was rejected for the roles because his applications and interview performance did not show the relevant experience or suitability.	Dismissed	Race	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct related to the 8 May 2023 Teams call, when he appeared naked from the waist down and exposed his genitals. Applying Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, it found Ms Carter honestly believed the conduct occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that Mr McRobert carried out a reasonable investigation. It concluded dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	Claim two. The tribunal dismissed the race discrimination allegations about the investigation process, the scheduling of disciplinary meetings while the claimant was unwell, the public-holiday allegation, and the dismissal itself. It found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred and accepted the respondent's explanations, including that the disciplinary hearing had been adjourned repeatedly before it proceeded in the claimant's absence.	Dismissed	Race	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held the claimant's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and that the respondent was entitled to accept that breach and dismiss without notice. It therefore rejected the claim for notice pay.

Legal tests applied

20 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.