Case 3201253/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Williams v Essex Cares Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3201253/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms S Harwood, Dr J Ukemenam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Williams brought a claim of direct race discrimination against Essex Cares Ltd arising from alleged incidents on 19 September 2019, 17 January 2020, 7 February 2020, 10 February 2020 and 9 April 2020. The tribunal found that the alleged racist remarks by Sam Gooch and Billy Turner were not made, that the alleged remark by Trudi Foster about being an immigrant and always moaning was not made, and that the alleged refusal to adjourn the 9 April 2020 meeting so the claimant could take medication did not happen.
On the work-allocation evidence, the tribunal accepted that the claimant sometimes had a heavy workload, but found there was no significant overall difference between his allocations and those of other drivers. It found that route changes were made because of sickness absence, that the claimant was not singled out for disproportionately more work, and that the complaints about his phone were systemic and not unique to him. The tribunal also accepted that the 5 December 2019 grievance meeting took place and rejected the claimant's account that the managers were laughing at him or mocking him because he was black.
The tribunal accepted the contemporaneous notes of the 9 April 2020 meeting and found that Barbara Harris and Trudi Foster were asking the claimant to explain his concerns about race discrimination, workload and his knee injury. It found that he did not identify racist remarks in that meeting and that the tribunal's own recording of the later 14 April 2020 meeting with Billy Turner showed Mr Turner trying to assist with lighter duties rather than acting because of race. Applying the direct discrimination framework under sections 13, 23, 39 and 136 of the Equality Act 2010, and the comparator and burden-of-proof authorities it cited, the tribunal held that there was no evidence from which less favourable treatment because of race could be inferred. The claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim based on seven alleged incidents between 19 September 2019 and 9 April 2020. The tribunal rejected the alleged remarks by Sam Gooch, Billy Turner and Trudi Foster, rejected the complaint about the 9 April 2020 meeting, and found no facts from which race discrimination could be inferred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010 comparator test
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Madarassy v Nomura International
- Shamoon comparator principle
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Ahsan v Watt evidential comparator
- London Borough of Islington v Ladele
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
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.