Case 3306687/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3306687/2018
- Decision date
- 7 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams Members
- Venue
- Amersham and Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti MBE, Mr D Sagar
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Oladepo, who was of black African ethnic origin, worked for E.on Energy Solutions Ltd as a trainee Smart Meter Installer from 5 June 2017. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that a mock MOCOPA audit took place on 30 June 2017 and that the claimant made 24 unsafe errors during that assessment. It also accepted the respondent's contemporaneous records and witness evidence about concerns raised during training, including observations on 3 August 2017 that the claimant was not following safety procedures.
The tribunal found that the claimant's suspension on 15 August 2017, the restart of the investigation into his unsafe working practices, the first written warning on 20 December 2017, and the decision not to start him on gas-meter training were all driven by safety concerns and by his failure to accept criticism, not by race. On the restart of the investigation, the majority concluded that there was no basis to infer race discrimination, although Mr Sagar dissented and would have inferred discrimination from the way the investigation was disbanded and restarted.
The harassment allegations also failed. The claimant withdrew the allegation attributed to Mr Baptiste, and the tribunal found that Ms Usher did not say that she would put the claimant's portfolio in the dustbin. It further held that the audit of the claimant's van on 30 August 2017 was not unwanted conduct related to race. Applying the EqA 2010 burden of proof framework and the harassment test under section 26, the tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claims and the remaining harassment claims, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment rejected race discrimination allegations concerning the claimant's suspension, the disciplinary decision, the refusal of trade union representation at the suspension meeting, the restart of the investigation, the first written warning, and the decision not to move him onto gas-meter training. On the restart issue, the majority found no inference of race discrimination, although Mr Sagar dissented. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegation attributed to Mr Steven Baptiste was withdrawn by the claimant; the reserved judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | The remaining harassment allegations, including the alleged dustbin remark by Ms Usher and the 30 August 2017 van audit, were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.136 EqA 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- s.26 EqA 2010
- Unite the Union v Nailard
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.