In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr D Jehovah-Nissi was employed by West Suffolk College as Head of Engineering from 14 August 2017 until 7 March 2018. He brought claims of race discrimination and victimisation based on colour, together with a claim for relocation costs of £854.04. The tribunal found that his complaint on 20 October 2017 about an ESOL course was not an allegation of discrimination at the time, because the course had been suggested rather than instructed. It found that the first protected act was the written complaint of 28 November 2017, followed by emails on 13 January 2018 and 25 January 2018.

The tribunal rejected the direct race discrimination allegations. It found that the criticism given by Gary Jefferson in September and October 2017 arose from staff complaints and concerns about the claimant's management style, that the requests relating to backlog work and teaching duties were within the claimant's role as Head of Engineering, and that the student complaints were genuine complaints made by students. It also found that the probationary review process on 7 March 2018 was required by the claimant's contract and the College's probation procedure, and that the dismissal was because of performance concerns and a safeguarding breach, not because of race. The tribunal said the claimant had not shown facts from which it could conclude that a white or non-black comparator would have been treated differently.

The victimisation allegations also failed. The tribunal found that the 28 November 2017 complaint was acknowledged the same day and followed by an informal meeting with Colin Shaw, then an informal investigation by Laraine Moody and a later formal grievance investigation by Stephen Jones. It held that there was no improper delay, no requirement in the policy for a joint meeting, and no evidence that Mr Jefferson was handling the investigation against the claimant. The tribunal also found no evidence that students' complaints had been colluded in or directed by College staff, and that it was appropriate to obtain the claimant's comments on those complaints.

The relocation-cost claim failed because the tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement to relocation expenses and no entitlement under the College's policy. The post was not advertised as attracting relocation costs, the policy applied only in exceptional circumstances to posts difficult to recruit to, the claimant did not raise the issue until after accepting and signing his contract, and his application was not properly completed with the required undertaking and receipts. Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and citing Madarassy v Nomura International Plc and Bahl v The Law Society, the tribunal concluded that none of the complaints was well founded and dismissed the claim.