Mr A Organista v Abbey Total Care Group Limited — 2023

Mr A Organista, a white Portuguese cleaner at the Abbey Total Care Group care home, brought a direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. He complained about a request for a fit note when returning from sickness absence, a temporary reduction in hours after his long absence, the tone of a meeting with Mr Amit Patel on 28 October 2020, workplace rules discussed at a staff meeting on 11 December 2020, being asked to sign employee documents, being told to use a maintenance book rather than email, and matters relating to carpet cleaning and alleged monitoring by colleagues.

The tribunal accepted some of the claimant's factual complaints in part, including that he was asked for medical evidence, that his hours were initially said to reduce from 30 to 15, and that he was told not to use his mobile phone to take photographs at work. However, it found that the respondent's reasons were non-discriminatory: the fit note request was to confirm fitness to return and any needed adjustments; the hours issue arose because another cleaner had been hired during his absence and all cleaners were treated similarly; and the mobile phone issue was dealt with lightly because of the respondent's policy and the privacy of residents. The tribunal found that the 28 October meeting was not rude or intimidating, but that Mr Patel was irritated by the claimant's criticism of colleagues.

On the wider allegations, the tribunal found that the 11 December staff meeting gave general guidance about whistleblowing and about knocking before entering residents' rooms or not entering while they were asleep, and that this was aimed at the whole workforce rather than at the claimant. It also found that the employee documents the claimant was asked to sign were standard documents used for all staff, that the maintenance reporting arrangement was a matter of convenience rather than an attempt to suppress evidence, and that there was no reliable evidence of management asking colleagues to monitor or "stalk" him. Applying the burden of proof approach in s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities it cited, including Nagarajan, Shamoon, Igen, Madarassy, Base Childrenswear, Deman, Hewage and Anya, the tribunal held that there were no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred and that, in any event, each complaint had a non-discriminatory explanation. The claim was therefore dismissed in full and no remedy was awarded.