Case 3200707/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Bekele v Syniverse Technologies Solutions Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200707/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Members
- Panel members
- Mrs G Forrest, Mr D Clay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Bekele
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Z Bekele, who identifies as Black, was employed by Syniverse Technologies Solutions Limited as a Customer Service Supervisor from 20 June 2011 until his dismissal by reason of redundancy on 1 October 2020. He brought claims of unfair dismissal, age discrimination, direct race discrimination and harassment related to race. The age discrimination claim was withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 29 October 2021, and the unfair dismissal and harassment claims were struck out on 24 August 2022 as out of time. The Tribunal therefore determined only five allegations of direct race discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge S Shore with Mrs G Forrest and Mr D Clay, unanimously dismissed all five direct race discrimination claims. It found that the claimant had not proved facts from which, if unexplained, it could conclude that the conduct complained of was because of race, so the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that the redundancy decision was made by Ms Emma Blatch for the reasons set out in her evidence, that Mr Sbeih did not influence that decision, that the respondent followed a reasonable redundancy process, and that Mr Bryan Thomas conducted a thorough and detailed appeal investigation.
The Tribunal added that, even if the burden of proof had shifted, it would have found the acts complained of were not because of race, relying on the evidence of Ms Blatch and Mr Thomas and the supporting contemporaneous documents. It noted that the claimant had not raised a formal grievance about the alleged discriminatory behaviour during his employment despite being advised that he could. As all claims were dismissed, no remedy hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | First Claim: allegation that Mr Sbeih asked the claimant in February 2020 to take on additional managerial responsibilities for the Financial Clearing Team without additional pay or change in job title, and threatened him that his position would be eliminated if he did not. Dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Second Claim: allegation that Mr Sbeih instructed the claimant in August 2020 not to send an email about a complaint directed to senior management from his direct reports. Dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Third Claim: allegation that Mr Sbeih had an argument with the claimant on or around 11 August 2020 because the claimant had sent an email against his instructions. Dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Fourth Claim: allegation that the claimant's dismissal by reason of redundancy on 1 October 2020 by Ms Emma Blatch was an act of direct race discrimination. Dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Fifth Claim: allegation that Mr Bryan Thomas failed to consider the claimant's appeal properly on 11 November 2020 because of race. Dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Age discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant at the first preliminary hearing on 29 October 2021 before REJ Burgher; formally dismissed upon withdrawal in this Judgment. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010 (direct discrimination)
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 (time limits)
- section 136 Equality Act 2010 (burden of proof)
- section 9(1) Equality Act 2010
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.