In Person For the v Respondent — 2022

On 8 March 2022 at Watford by CVP, Employment Judge Anderson dealt with the respondent's strike-out and deposit application and the claimant's application to strike out the response. The claimant had presented a race discrimination claim on 23 March 2021. The tribunal struck out the claimant's alleged breaches of section 29 of the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Computer Misuse Act 1990 because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction over those matters.

The tribunal treated the remaining discrimination case as including indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment. Under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, the claimant relied on the respondent's CCTV policy, the requirement to use a meeting card during authorised absences in working time, the disciplinary policy and the grievance policy. The tribunal did not strike out the indirect discrimination claims, but found there was little reasonable prospect of success and ordered a deposit in respect of each of the four PCPs.

The harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was also allowed to proceed and no deposit order was made, because the tribunal considered that a full consideration of the facts would be needed. The victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was struck out: the tribunal found that the minutes of the investigatory meeting did not refer to discrimination, and on the claimant's own account any discussion of discrimination had taken place in a private conversation to which the respondent was not party. The claimant's application to strike out the response was refused, and the tribunal held that the response was not scandalous or vexatious.