Mr J Johnson v Capital City College Group and 9 others — 2025

At the preliminary hearing on 18 July 2025, Employment Judge Norris considered the Respondents' strike out application concerning Mr J Johnson's claims arising from his work as an MMA instructor for Capital City College Group between 27 November 2023 and 10 July 2024. The Tribunal applied the high strike-out threshold in Rule 38(1)(a), with reference to Ezsias and Romanowska, and the discrimination tests in Igen v Wong and Madarassy, together with the harassment and victimisation provisions in sections 26 and 27 of the Equality Act 2010 and the approach in UNITE the Union v Nailard and Cox v Adecco.

The Tribunal found that, although the Claimant had produced a large email bundle, the basis for saying that the complained-of conduct was because of race or related to race remained unclear. It held that the material contained no prima facie evidence of race discrimination, and repeatedly characterised the complaints as bare assertions. On that basis it struck out allegations 1 to 31 and 33 as having no reasonable prospect of success, including the complaints against Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10.

The Tribunal gave specific reasons for rejecting the grievance-related complaints. It held that the evidence showed R5 had acknowledged the grievances and appointed an investigator; R6 was seeking information to investigate the grievance rather than ignoring evidence or harassing the Claimant; R7 had responded to the grievance and had no involvement in the dismissal decision; and R8's emails showed the agreed hours and payroll position rather than any refusal to pay for work already authorised. It also noted that the previous cases relied on by the Claimant did not show a pattern of discriminatory conduct.

Allegation 32, concerning the 10 July 2024 termination letter stating that the First Respondent had decided not to run the MMA academy in the next academic year, was struck out insofar as it was advanced as direct discrimination or harassment. However, the Tribunal allowed it to proceed as a victimisation complaint against the First and Eighth Respondents only, subject to a deposit order made separately. The separate unpaid wages complaint against the First Respondent also survived, but only for case management purposes and subject to further particulars of how the claimed £575 for 23 hours was calculated; no substantive remedy was decided in this judgment.