Mrs Saher Habeeb Aziz (the claimant’s mother) For the v Mr Paul Croker, Solicitor — 2024

The claimant worked as a security guard for the respondent from 16 June to 22 June 2023. The tribunal found that he was required to remain in the reception area during breaks at the client site and that, after being found in his car during breaks, the respondent ended his engagement. The tribunal accepted the respondent's witnesses' evidence that the alleged racist comments relied on by the claimant were not made.

On direct race discrimination, the tribunal found that the claimant had not established facts from which it could conclude that he was treated less favourably because of race, so the burden of proof did not pass to the respondent. It also stated that, had the burden passed, the respondent had shown that a hypothetical security guard who was not Indian but was found in the same circumstances would also have been dismissed.

On victimisation, the tribunal found that because the alleged racist comments were not made, there was no protected act to rely on. It further found that, even if raising the alleged discrimination had been a protected act, the respondent had answered the grievance in a short email and the claimant was not subjected to the alleged detriment.