Case 2305120/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Solomon Demba v Care UK Clinical Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305120/2019
- Decision date
- 1 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Tribunal
- Panel members
- Julie Cook, Grace Mitchell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Solomon Demba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Demba, a registered nurse, accepted a conditional offer for a senior post with Care UK Clinical Services Ltd. The tribunal found the arrangement never became a contract of employment because the offer remained subject to references and DBS clearance, and those conditions were not satisfied. It accepted that there had been delays and confusion in the processing of the offer, including disputed attempts to arrange meetings in August 2019 and the claimant's grievance on 27 August 2019, followed by withdrawal of the offer on 17 September 2019.
The direct race discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that Mr O'Leary and Ms Kingsmill had concerns about references and the DBS check, but found nothing to show that the delay, the withdrawal of the offer, or the handling of the matter was because of race. It said the documentation was scant and difficult to follow, but the information available to Ms Knight led her to withdraw the offer because she understood Mr Demba had not been in contact. The tribunal also rejected the further race discrimination claim based on the failure to investigate the grievance, finding that the failure was incompetent but not race-related.
The victimisation claim was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the grievance was a protected act and that it had in effect been ignored, but it found no evidence that the offer was withdrawn because of the grievance. It said the grievance was referred to in the email chain, but Ms Knight's decision was not made for that reason.
Age discrimination was withdrawn at the start of the hearing. The judgment records an age-related harassment allegation based on an alleged comment that the respondent would be more likely to accept a younger person, but the extempore reasons do not separately analyse that allegation; the final order dismissed the remaining claim in full.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | At the start of the hearing the claimant withdrew his age discrimination claim. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim arising from the delay in starting employment, the withdrawal of the conditional offer, and the manner in which that was communicated. The tribunal found the offer remained conditional on references and DBS clearance and that the eventual withdrawal was based on unresolved contact and administrative issues, not race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Further direct race discrimination claim based on the respondent's failure to investigate the grievance submitted on 27 August 2019. The tribunal accepted the grievance was ignored and said that was incompetent, but found no racial motivation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The grievance of 27 August 2019 was accepted as a protected act, but the tribunal found the withdrawal of the offer was not because of that grievance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment was alleged by reference to the home manager's said comment that the respondent would be more likely to accept a younger person. The judgment does not separately reason out this allegation in the extempore reasons, but the remaining claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd & Ors v Wong
- Barton v Investec Securities Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi
- Bakkali v Greater Manchester Buses (South) Ltd
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.
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.