Dr H Enayatollahi v Forth Engineering (Cumbria) Limited and 2 others — 2024

The claimant, Dr H Enayatollahi, was seconded to Forth Engineering (Cumbria) Ltd as a Knowledge Transfer Partnership associate on a project involving a master slave manipulator for nuclear decommissioning work. The tribunal found that there were no concerns raised about his performance at the first two LMC meetings, but that serious concerns emerged at the third LMC on 29 June 2022 about the progress of the project, the claimant's technical competence, his failure to attend a residential training course in March 2022, the time he was spending on cryptocurrency and online chess during working hours, and his disclosure to Mr Telford that his brother in Iran had helped with a circuit diagram. On the tribunal's findings, Mr Telford and Mr Lewis then concluded that the claimant should not continue as Associate and told Dr Arvin that the first respondent did not want him back on site.

The claimant's harassment complaint failed because the tribunal preferred the respondents' evidence about what happened on 6 July 2022. It found that the alleged conduct involving music, mocking his family name and the alleged racist remark did not occur. The tribunal considered the open-plan office setting, the evidence of Mrs Beetham, Mr Moffatt and Mr Mattinson, and the surrounding timeline, and concluded the claimant's account was implausible. It therefore rejected the harassment allegations under section 26 Equality Act 2010.

The direct race discrimination complaint also failed. The tribunal found that Mr Telford did not tell Dr Arvin to secure the claimant's resignation and did not make false allegations to ask the University of Manchester to dismiss him. It found that Mr Telford genuinely held concerns about the claimant's capability and conduct, and that the concerns about the claimant's progress, training attendance, timekeeping, cryptocurrency use, online gaming and the reference to his brother were genuine factual concerns rather than fabricated allegations. In the alternative, the tribunal found that any treatment was not because of race: Mr Telford would have acted the same way towards an Associate about whose capability and conduct he had similar concerns, regardless of race. As all complaints failed, the tribunal awarded no remedy.