Mr Feruzy Juma v Shred-It Ltd — 2023

The Tribunal held that the claimant’s earlier complaints about remarks said to have been made by Mr Kent were out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It found there was no continuing course of conduct: the relevant remarks were isolated, had not been raised with management at the time, and admitting them would cause prejudice because the events were several years old and not documented. The Tribunal referred to British Coal Corporation v Keeble and Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal when assessing the time point and the nature of the alleged comments.

The race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims all failed. The Tribunal found the claimant had not been treated less favourably because of race, and that race was not a material factor in the respondent’s actions. It accepted that comments about race and immigration had been made in conversation between the claimant and Mr Kent, but found the evidence did not show an ongoing workplace issue known to management or treatment of the claimant that would support a race claim. On harassment and victimisation, the Tribunal found no evidence of unwanted conduct related to race creating the relevant environment, and no evidence that the respondent acted because the claimant had done a protected act.

The unfair dismissal claim also failed. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the Tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason, namely conduct, and had carried out a reasonable investigation and fair procedure. It identified the actual reasons for dismissal as aggressive behaviour towards Ms McLaine and unauthorised absences on 19, 20 and 21 April 2022, in the context of a final written warning. The Tribunal found Ms O’Gara genuinely concluded that dismissal was the appropriate sanction, that the decision was within the band of reasonable responses, and that the appeal process was available though the claimant did not engage with it. The allegation of inappropriate touching was not a factor in the dismissal decision, and the Tribunal said it did not need to make a finding on that allegation.