Case 3311628/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Lindo v Hats Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311628/2023
- Decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Bean, Mrs S Boot
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Lindo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lindo worked for Hats Group Ltd as an ambulance driver/ACA based at Hillingdon Hospital. After a 15 August 2023 complaint email from a Trust employee alleging that he had verbally abused her at a petrol station and threatened to shoot her, the respondent carried out an investigation, held a disciplinary hearing, and summarily dismissed him on 19 September 2023. His appeal succeeded, but the respondent said Hillingdon would not allow him back on site and offered work at other sites instead; he declined that offer by email on 2 November 2023.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the employment contract contained a mobility clause allowing the respondent to place the claimant at other locations or client sites, so there was no breach in moving him away from Hillingdon. Applying the authorities on reinstatement and constructive dismissal, including Savage and Folkestone, the tribunal found there was no actual dismissal because the successful appeal extinguished the original dismissal, and no constructive dismissal because the claimant had not resigned in response to any repudiatory breach. His 2 November 2023 email was treated as an unequivocal resignation, and the respondent’s failure to ask the Trust to reconsider did not change that outcome.
On direct race discrimination, the tribunal rejected the complaints about starting the investigation, the general conduct of the investigation, and Magda’s limited involvement. It upheld the complaints that the respondent failed to test the complainant’s evidence, did not obtain or consider available CCTV, accepted the untested allegation that the claimant had verbally abused the complainant, and dismissed him on 19 September 2023. The tribunal found that a tribunal could infer less favourable treatment because of race, including subconscious stereotyping, and that the respondent had not shown the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of race. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was no actual dismissal after the appeal succeeded, and no constructive dismissal when the claimant declined alternative work at other sites. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Issue 5.1.1: initiating the disciplinary investigation based on the complaint email was found not to be because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Issue 5.1.2: the investigation was found to have flaws, but the tribunal held those flaws and any alleged influence from others were not because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Issue 5.1.3: the tribunal upheld the complaint that the respondent failed to consider available CCTV or other recordings when dealing with the allegation. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Issue 5.1.4: the tribunal upheld the complaint that the decision-maker racially profiled the claimant when assessing whether he had verbally abused the complainant. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination |
Legal tests applied
8 references- J Sainsbury Ltd v Savage
- Folkestone Nursing Home Ltd v Patel
- Hogg v Dover College
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses
- Igen Ltd v Wong / s.136 EqA
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.