Mr Solomon Ijegede v Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Limited — 2019

Mr Solomon Ijegede brought race discrimination, harassment and victimisation complaints arising from his employment with Signature Senior Lifestyle Operations Limited. The tribunal held that complaints arising before 29 January 2018 were out of time under s123 Equality Act 2010. It also rejected the central allegation that Ms Fiona Smith's 'dark side' comment was race-related, finding that the remark was not less favourable treatment because of race and was dealt with appropriately in a facilitated meeting by Mrs Alison Jayawardena.

The tribunal found that the later complaints about unscheduled meetings and management discussions were not discriminatory detriments. It held that the 23 January 2018 meeting was an investigatory meeting, not a disciplinary hearing, and that the 29 January 2018 supervision note warning the claimant to remain professional was an appropriate management response to the breakdown in working relations with Ms Smith. The 2 March 2018 invitation to a disciplinary hearing was supported by a prima facie case to answer concerning medication and resident-care issues, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent was entitled to commence that process.

The harassment allegations against Mrs Klara Scally were rejected because the claimant did not provide sufficiently specific incidents and the tribunal preferred Mrs Scally's evidence. The complaints about emails and meetings while the claimant was recovering from surgery, the alleged lack of detail in correspondence, and the 20, 23 and 27 February 2018 meetings were treated as ordinary investigatory or management steps, not conduct creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal also rejected the victimisation claim, holding that the 9 March 2018 restriction on administering medication was an interim measure applied because of unresolved medication concerns, that the claimant remained on his normal pay, and that it was not imposed because he had made the grievance relied upon as a protected act.