Case 2400086/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kawiliza v Mia Casa Care Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400086/2020
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr S Husain, Mr A Clark
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Kawiliza
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Kawiliza worked for Mia Casa Care Ltd as a live-in carer from 11 September 2019 until 1 October 2019, alongside Mr G Fox. He alleged that Mr Fox, who was white and of English origin, treated him badly because of race, and that this caused him to resign. The tribunal heard evidence over 7, 8, 9 June 2022 and 18 October 2022 before Employment Judge Dunlop with Mr S Husain and Mr A Clark.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's direct race discrimination allegations under s.13 EqA 2010. It did not accept that Mr Fox subjected him to daily verbal abuse, prevented him from ordering food, denied him access to medication or records, or failed to involve him in Mr T's care. It also preferred Mr Fox's evidence that the alleged banana comment did not happen. The one incident it did find proved, removing the claimant's drinks from the fridge, was found to have happened because the fridge was full and would have been done for any carer in the same circumstances.
The harassment claim under s.26 EqA 2010 also failed because the tribunal found that the proven fridge incident was unwanted but not related to race. More generally, it found that any poor conduct between the two men reflected a personality clash and personal antipathy rather than racial bias. The claim that the claimant had been constructively dismissed in a discriminatory way also failed for the same reason.
The respondent conceded the two wage claims during the June hearing. The tribunal ordered Mia Casa Care Ltd to pay £210 for one unauthorised deduction and £25 for the taxi fare deduction, making a total gross award of £235.00. No remedy hearing was needed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination under s.13 EqA 2010 was not well founded. The tribunal rejected the allegations of daily verbal abuse, being prevented from ordering food, denial of access to medication, medical records and financial information, and failure to involve the claimant in care. It found that the one proven incident, removal of the claimant's drinks from the fridge, was explained by lack of space and would have happened to any carer in the same position, and that any poor conduct arose from personal antipathy rather than race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The race harassment claim under s.26 EqA 2010 failed. The tribunal accepted only that the claimant's drinks were removed from the fridge, but found that conduct was unwanted and not related to race, so the harassment complaint failed at that stage. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim that the claimant had been constructively dismissed in a discriminatory way failed. Having rejected the material race allegations and found no racial bias in Mr Fox's conduct, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal-based discrimination claim could not succeed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded the claim for an unauthorised deduction of £210 from the claimant's wages, and the tribunal ordered payment of that gross sum. | Upheld | — | £210 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent conceded the claim for an unauthorised deduction of £25 in respect of a taxi fare, and the tribunal ordered payment of that gross sum. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £235
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.109(4) Equality Act 2010
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Limited [2003] IRLR 332
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] IRLR 285
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] ICR 1054
- Igen Limited v Wong [2005] ICR 931
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC [2007] ICR 867
- Royal Mail v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] IRLR 336
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.