Mr Jamshid Aslam v Abellio London Limited — 2024

The claimant applied for a zero-hours London Rail Replacement Controller role and received a conditional job offer from the respondent. The offer was later withdrawn after difficulties obtaining a Metroline reference and after internal discussion of the claimant's pending tribunal claim against Metroline and his 11 June 2019 email asking whether different treatment about shifts was because others were of a different race.

On victimisation, the Tribunal found the pleaded case was limited to section 27(1)(a) Equality Act 2010, namely detriment because the claimant had done a protected act. It found that those involved in withdrawing the offer did not know the Metroline proceedings were Equality Act proceedings, that the 11 June 2019 email was a question about possible differential treatment rather than a protected act, and that later alleged protected acts post-dated the withdrawal. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the pleaded victimisation complaint, while noting its factual finding that the reason for withdrawal was to avoid "future issues" which could include a race discrimination complaint or claim.

On direct race discrimination, the Tribunal considered the withdrawal of the offer, allocation of shifts before induction, reference handling, refusal of personal references, failure to wait longer for a reference, and failure to respond to the 11 June 2019 email. It found no credible evidence that race influenced those decisions, accepted the respondent's explanation that two comparators had previous agency-worker engagement allowing work before induction, and held that the claimant had not shifted the burden of proof on the race discrimination allegations. Both complaints were dismissed.