In Person For the v Mrs R Peck, Solicitor - Partner — 2022

The claimant worked for Paragon Finance Plc as a Regional Surveyor from 11 February 2019 to 22 July 2019. He brought race, religion and disability discrimination claims and a breach of contract claim relating to expenses. The tribunal accepted that he had Type 2 diabetes, but found the respondent did not know that the condition created a substantial disadvantage for him and did not accept that the claimant had told the respondent that surprises were unwelcome because of his diabetes.

The tribunal held that the claims were presented out of time and struck out for want of jurisdiction. It then dealt with the claims in the alternative and found that none was well-founded. On the discrimination allegations, the tribunal found the respondent's concerns were about the claimant's performance, report quality and turnaround times, not his race, religion or disability. It accepted contemporaneous evidence of repeated feedback, training support and formal probationary review meetings, and found that the claimant had been given additional time to improve before dismissal. Where the evidence conflicted, it preferred the respondent's witnesses.

The tribunal rejected the allegation that the claimant had been required to attend pub-based meetings or buy alcoholic drinks, finding that non-alcoholic options were available and there was no requirement to drink alcohol. It also rejected the alleged discriminatory interview comments and the alleged racist remarks said to have been made at the appeal hearing. Ms Angela Henry was not treated as a like-for-like comparator because her probationary circumstances were materially different and she was not missing deadlines.

The dismissal was found to be for performance reasons. Mr Shaun Kelly, who chaired the appeal on 23 August 2019, was found to be independent and upheld the dismissal on 20 September 2019 after reviewing the concerns raised by Mr Neil Smith and Ms Katherine Bodfish. The breach of contract expenses claim failed because the claimant did not submit the expense claim in the required way and there was no contractual basis for payment of professional subscriptions incurred before the employment started.