Mr F. Cocos v London Borough of Newham — 2022

The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not done a protected act on 8 March 2019, but that his grievance of 18 June 2020 contained a protected act because it complained of sex and race discrimination by Mr Hillsden and associates. The harassment and direct discrimination claims concerning alleged conduct in 2019 and 2020 were dismissed because they were out of time, or in some race harassment allegations because deposits had not been paid. The Tribunal declined to extend time for those claims, taking into account the delay, the explanation for it, prejudice, and the merits.

The victimisation claims about events before 18 June 2020 failed because they predated the only protected act. The grievance-handling victimisation claims were dismissed as out of time and, in any event, the Tribunal found that the pleaded protected act did not match the protected act established and that there was no evidence from which it could conclude the alleged treatment was because of the protected act. The dismissal-related victimisation claims were allowed to proceed in time but were dismissed on the merits; the Tribunal found no evidence that the restructure, interview scoring, failure to slot the Claimant into a role, HR attendance at interview, or dismissal were materially influenced by the protected act.

On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal accepted jurisdiction after finding it had not been reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the claim earlier, because he had reasonably understood communications about his redundancy being paused or deferred as affecting the dismissal date. On the merits, it found the sole reason for dismissal was redundancy, that the selection pool and consultation were reasonable, and that the interview-based selection process and redeployment steps fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.