Ms C Ekwunife v Sage Housing Group Limited — 2024

The hearing took place by video link at London Central on 23 October 2024 before Employment Judge Langridge. Ms Ekwunife, who has been employed by Sage Housing Group Limited since 30 May 2022 as a lettings officer, had brought two claims. The first, presented on 15 April 2024, alleged race discrimination and race-related harassment arising from matters including the refusal of a flexible working request on 29 November 2023, pay alignment issues, an office-working requirement emailed on 7 December 2023, and a 2 January 2024 return-to-work meeting. The second, presented on 9 September 2024, concerned a later flexible working request refused on 21 May 2024, a victimisation case based on alleged detriments after the first claim, and further race discrimination allegations.

The tribunal struck out all of the discrimination claims in the first and second claims under Rule 37(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospects of success. It held that the pleaded cases were out of time on their face, that the claimant had not identified facts from which race could be inferred, and that there was no factual basis capable of shifting the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010. The judgment refers to the claimant's reliance on a Chinese comparator for the first flexible working request and a Caucasian comparator for the second, but found that no material had been provided showing that the decisions were taken because of race.

The tribunal also struck out the race-related harassment complaint in the first claim and the victimisation complaint in the second claim. For the harassment allegation, the tribunal said there was nothing to suggest the January 2024 return-to-work meeting request was unwanted conduct related to race. For victimisation, it found the pleaded detriments were insufficiently particularised, some were out of time, and none of them provided a factual basis for concluding that the claimant had been subjected to detriment because she had brought the first claim. The tribunal considered, but rejected as disproportionate, ordering further particulars.

The remaining flexible working complaint in the second claim was not struck out and was left to be dealt with under separate case management orders. The reasons refer to the statutory flexible working provisions in sections 80F, 80G and 80H Employment Rights Act 1996, and the judgment notes an inconsistency in the section reference used for that remaining complaint. No monetary award was made in this preliminary judgment.