Case 3304433/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Philbert v Secretary of State for Justice — 2018
- Case reference
- 3304433/2018
- Decision date
- 20 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Mr D Sutton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr V Philbert, a Probation Service Officer at Wood Green Crown Court, brought claims of race discrimination, race-related harassment and victimisation against the Secretary of State for Justice. His sex discrimination claim had already been withdrawn at the case management hearing. The tribunal heard evidence about the December 2016 incidents involving Peter Fung, the subsequent investigation, the later allegations made by Claire Rowley about comments on rape cases, and the disciplinary and grievance processes that followed.
On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected the allegations that the respondent acted less favourably because of race when it chose a formal disciplinary route rather than mediation, delayed providing material, suspended the claimant, dismissed him, issued a final written warning, moved him away from Wood Green, advertised his post, or handled his grievance. It found that the claimant’s conduct was genuinely a matter of concern, that HR advice supported the steps taken, that the comparators relied on were not sufficiently similar in the respects material to the complaint, and that the relevant decision-makers were not influenced by race. The tribunal also found that the failure to use the suspension checklist did not establish discrimination because Mr Blight was not aware of that checklist at the time.
The harassment claim failed for the same reason. The tribunal had rejected the pleaded race-based conduct said to amount to harassment, so it did not find unwanted conduct related to race within section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The victimisation claim also failed. Although the tribunal considered the relocation away from Wood Green to be the most substantial part of that complaint, it concluded that Mr Blight acted because of the claimant’s continuing complaints about him and the breakdown in their working relationship, rather than because the claimant had done protected acts. All claims were therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claimant’s sex discrimination claim had been withdrawn at the case management hearing; this entry covers the remaining race discrimination claim, including the pleaded particulars about the disciplinary investigation, suspension, dismissal, final written warning, relocation, vacancy advertisement and grievance handling. The tribunal rejected each alleged act as not done because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 failed because the tribunal had rejected the underlying race-based allegations and did not find conduct linked to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal treated the relocation issue as the substantial victimisation complaint, but found that Mr Blight’s decision was driven by the claimant’s continuing complaints about him and the practical breakdown in the working relationship, not by protected acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.23(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Reynolds v CLFIS (UK) Ltd
- GMB v Henderson
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.