Mr H Hasha v Notting Hill Genesis — 2019

Mr H Hasha, employed by Notting Hill Genesis as a quality assurance surveyor, brought claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation arising from the respondent’s investigation into a serious health and safety incident at a property in April 2018. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had previously raised a grievance on 27 March 2018 about a comment made by Mr Pace, that the grievance was accepted by the respondent as a protected act, and that the grievance outcome partially upheld some aspects of that complaint. The claimant said the later investigation was instigated and handled in a way that was motivated by race and by that earlier grievance.

The tribunal found that the steps incident was serious and justified a formal health and safety investigation. It accepted that Mr Pace asked for an independent investigation, not a disciplinary one, and that the use of disciplinary wording in the paperwork came from HR templates and practice rather than from Mr Pace directing a disciplinary process. The tribunal also found that Mr Pace himself pointed out the incorrect use of disciplinary terminology. It held that the timing of the investigation coinciding with the grievance outcome was coincidental.

On the photographs, the tribunal accepted that Mr Halligan took later photographs because of genuine concern when he inspected the steps and found that the top step had collapsed further. It rejected the assertion that Mr Pace procured misleading photographs, finding instead that the later images reflected a more serious state of repair than the earlier photographs the claimant had seen. The tribunal also found that Mr Halligan’s actions were driven by concerns about safety, not by the claimant’s race or any protected act.

Applying the burden of proof provisions, the tribunal considered that the claimant had identified matters from which discrimination or victimisation could potentially be inferred, but it concluded that the respondent had given non-discriminatory explanations for what happened. It therefore found that the claimant had not been treated less favourably because of race and had not been subjected to a detriment because he had done a protected act. All claims were dismissed unanimously, and no remedy was awarded.