Case 3300584/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Isaac Harman (Managing Director) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300584/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Panel members
- Mrs J Keene, Mr A Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant remained employed and brought complaints of direct age, race and sex discrimination arising from alleged treatment by the respondent's owner. The tribunal applied section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and considered comparators including white colleagues, younger colleagues and female colleagues.
The tribunal found that most of the alleged treatment was not proved. It accepted that on two occasions Mr Harman told the claimant to watch his time in front of customers when he was late, and that this was less favourable treatment than white female staff because it was in front of customers, but found that it was not because of race or sex.
On the age discrimination allegation, the tribunal preferred Mr Harman's evidence that there had been general discussion about attracting a younger clientele and possibly employing an additional younger barber. It did not accept that the claimant was told he would be replaced by a younger barber, and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim. The tribunal found the alleged treatment at issues 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4 was not proved; issue 7.2 was proved only to the extent that the claimant was told to watch his time in front of customers when late, but this was not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the alleged treatment at issues 7.1, 7.3 and 7.4 was not proved; issue 7.2 was proved only to the extent that the claimant was told to watch his time in front of customers when late, but this was not because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim. The tribunal found the claimant was not told he would be replaced by a younger barber and had misinterpreted information about recruiting an additional younger barber. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
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.