In person For the v Mr D Chapman, solicitor — 2025

The claimant, Mr G Romano, worked for Norwich City Football Club from 2011 and was found to be an employee with two years' continuous service at the date his working relationship ended. The tribunal found that he worked under separate contracts when engaged for each assignment, with sufficient control exercised by the club, and that his recent pattern of work meant continuity of employment was preserved under s.212 Employment Rights Act 1996.

The dismissal arose after he mistakenly forwarded two images involving Nicola Sturgeon and Diane Abbott to a club employee. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made a genuine mistake in sending the messages to Neil Hunter. It found the respondent relied on conduct as the reason for dismissal, but held that the dismissal was unfair because the decision-making process was flawed and the sanction was outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal found the club had not properly explained to the claimant what he was said to have done wrong, had not made adequate enquiries of his line manager about his character, had not fairly addressed his repeated questions about whether private forwarding of messages in his personal life was being treated as misconduct, and had given insufficient weight to his length of service and unblemished record.

The tribunal also rejected the respondent's emphasis on lack of remorse. It noted that the claimant repeatedly apologised during the disciplinary and appeal hearings, and that the club had not explained why it considered the messages discriminatory on grounds of sex, race, or transphobia. The appeal approach was also criticised as inaccurate and unfair in its reading of the disciplinary policy. On that basis the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded under s.98(1)(a) and s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.

The race discrimination complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of his race or because English was not his first language. It considered that any confusion he experienced came from the way the investigation and disciplinary questioning was handled, rather than from race-based treatment.