In person v Respondent — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 24 August 2020, Employment Judge Glennie considered whether the Claimant's race discrimination complaint should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order. No evidence was heard. The Claimant was in person, with written submissions prepared for him by counsel, and the Respondent was represented by counsel.

The Claimant's pleaded case concerned three matters: that he was not given a contract or statement of terms, that he was not informed of the disciplinary and dismissal procedure or of UK guidance on such matters, and that he was not given an opportunity to address performance concerns and was falsely accused of customer complaints. The Claimant said he believed this happened because he was not Russian. The Respondent accepted that the offer letter and contract did not contain all particulars required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but denied discrimination and said dismissal was for performance concerns.

The tribunal applied Rule 37 and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Anyanwu, Ezsias, Patel, Madarassy, Chandhok v Tirkey and Ahir. It held that the case did not cross the threshold for a realistic prospect of proving facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The judge accepted that there was contemporaneous documentation showing performance concerns, including emails about KPIs and a client email referring to a missed training session. The judge also noted that the Claimant's own explanation shifted between not being Russian and not speaking Russian, and found that a complaint based on language was not the same as the pleaded complaint based on nationality or race.

The tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of finding that the Respondent invented or exaggerated performance concerns, failed to follow a dismissal procedure, or failed to provide a full contract because the Claimant was not Russian. The discrimination complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment also noted that there was insufficient time to determine whether the claim form disclosed a section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 complaint, and that issue was listed for a later telephone case management hearing.