Case 3302334/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bush v Cordant Recruitment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302334/2020
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bush
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal said the ET1 and particulars were vague and unclear. After an earlier letter suggested possible claim headings, a request for information was sent on 4 June 2020, but the claimant's 7 June 2020 response added little, and the judge questioned him further at the hearing before deciding the strike out application on the pleadings and his oral explanations.
On the undisputed facts, Cordant Recruitment was an employment agency, Amazon instructed it on 20 December 2019 to reduce headcount, the claimant was number 831 on the release list, and the workforce at EUK5 later fell sharply. Against that background, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the age discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination and whistleblowing detriment claims because the claimant did not identify proper comparators, protected acts, or a sufficient link between any protected characteristic and the treatment complained of; it also accepted the respondent's explanation that the assignment ended because of the client-driven reduction in demand.
The tribunal rejected the complaints about co-workers not speaking English properly, the training, the alleged prostitution network and blue badge promotion issue, and the Romanian-conversation allegation. It held that the English-language complaint was not tied to a protected characteristic, that there was no objective basis for harassment, and that the claimant could not properly recast the Romanian-conversation allegation as race discrimination or widen the case by amendment. The gender reassignment claim was withdrawn after the claimant accepted he was not within s.7 EqA, and the judge said the related gender discrimination or harassment case would also have failed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination allegations covered complaints about co-workers not speaking English properly, training, and the alleged prostitution network/blue badge promotion issue. The tribunal found no identified comparator, no less favourable treatment linked to sex, and no basis for the claim to proceed. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal said the claimant abandoned and withdrew any gender discrimination or harassment case at the hearing. The Romanian-conversation allegation was discussed under that heading, and the judge said it would have been struck out had it not been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The claimant accepted that he had not undergone, was not undergoing, and was not proposing to undergo gender reassignment within s.7 EqA 2010, and he withdrew the claim at the hearing. The opening order nevertheless grouped it with the struck out claims. | Withdrawn | Gender reassignment | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant said he was older than many of the staff and in his 40s, but he did not identify a protected age group, a comparator, or any link between the alleged treatment and age. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found no particulars of any protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996, no qualifying disclosure made in the public interest, and no basis to say the ending of the assignment was caused by whistleblowing. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
10 references- rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- A v B more than fanciful prospect
- Jansen Van Rensburg deposit order test
- s.26 EqA harassment / Richmond Pharmacology objective effect test
- s.136 EqA / Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Madarassy v Nomura
- Cavendish Munro / Kilraine qualifying disclosure test
- Babula reasonable belief test
- Chesterton Global public interest test
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.