Case 2300479/2016 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2017
- Case reference
- 2300479/2016
- Decision date
- 5 October 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron
- Panel members
- Ms N Christofi, Mr N Shanks
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is Indian, pursued 15 selected allegations out of 32 original allegations, alleging direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation, together with dismissal claims arising from alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal held the discrimination claims were in time because the conduct complained of amounted to conduct extending over a period ending no earlier than the claimant's resignation on 26 October 2015.
On the individual allegations, the tribunal found the missing full contract was the result of recruitment or administrative oversight; the limited workload, patchy support, lack of some training, reduced software access, and absence of appraisals were explained by Mr Asher's genuine concerns about the claimant's SQL skills, workload pressures and business need, not race or protected acts. It also rejected the allegations that Mr Port was aligned with Mr Asher or that the respondent had engineered the claimant's isolation.
The tribunal found the delay in providing the Knevett report arose first from oversight and then from a deliberate decision to discuss it face to face, but not because of race or victimisation. It found the annual leave dispute was a genuine policy disagreement, the sickness coding reflected the claimant's own description of stress, the June 2015 sickness-review letter was a genuine error, the 14 July 2015 meeting was difficult but not race-related, the occupational health recommendations were not effectively acted on, and the chair complaint was handled promptly; the cabinet and confidentiality allegations were not made out.
Having considered the allegations individually and collectively, the tribunal rejected direct race discrimination, harassment and victimisation across all 15 allegations. It also found that none of the alleged disclosures were made in the public interest, so the whistleblowing or automatic unfair dismissal claim failed; there was no fundamental breach to support constructive dismissal, and the claimant lacked two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | All 15 selected allegations were rejected; the tribunal found the conduct complained of was explained by performance concerns, administrative oversight, or management issues rather than race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted that some conduct may have had an adverse effect, but held it was not related to the claimant's race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that some protected acts had been done, but found the alleged detriments were not because of those acts. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found none of the alleged disclosures were made in the public interest, so there were no protected disclosures for the automatic unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent's conduct, considered as a whole, did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract or of mutual trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claimant had less than two years' service at the effective date of termination, so an ordinary unfair dismissal claim could not succeed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable RUC
- Richmond Pharmacology Ltd v Dhaliwal
- Land Registry v Grant
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Barclays Bank plc v Kapur
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Rodrigues v Co-operative Group
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharpe
- Malik v BCCI SA
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro v Geduld
- Darnton v University of Surrey
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.