Mr Ben Amunwa, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a Traffic Examiner employed from 12 June 2018 and dismissed during probation on 28 December 2018, brought claims of race harassment and direct race discrimination. The tribunal found that the allegations concerned remarks and conduct by Mr Michael Cheeseman, together with comments said by Ms Joanne Parker, Ms Sharon Galvin and others during training. It accepted that the claimant was late on a number of occasions and had performance concerns during training, but it treated the case as turning on whether the disputed conduct was said, and if so whether it was connected to race.

On the evidence about the alleged remarks concerning the Mozart Estate, the claimant’s son, the claimant’s hair or hat, and the alleged statement that she should “change yer name or get a divorce”, the tribunal preferred Mr Cheeseman’s evidence. It found that what he said was either not as alleged or was said in a different and non-racial context, such as discussion of the claimant’s family arrangements, IT problems caused by a hyphenated surname, or general comments about the area’s reputation for crime. The tribunal concluded that those remarks were not related to race and would have been said to a white woman in the same circumstances.

The tribunal also rejected the allegations that Mr Cheeseman said young black boys were at greater risk of exclusion, arrest or violence than white or Asian boys. It accepted that he may have made general observations about the criminal justice system or young people of colour, but found that whatever was said was part of an adult discussion and was not intended to be disrespectful or to create a hostile environment, and was not connected with race for the purposes of either section 26 or section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It further rejected the allegation that Mr Cheeseman told the claimant it was not a good idea to take her son to Manchester to stay with relatives because he would be a distraction, finding instead that his concern related to the claimant having her son with her in a hotel room during residential training.

On the allegations about training-room conduct, the tribunal preferred the evidence of Ms Parker, Ms Galvin and supporting contemporaneous material. It found that the claimant was not singled out because of race in relation to mobile phones, laptops, tablets or deleting photographs of PowerPoint slides, and that the trainers’ interventions were aimed at keeping her focused and at preventing distraction in class. It also found that comments about migrants found in vehicles and about drivers entering the UK were factual training examples, not ridicule or racial commentary. Applying section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Shamoon approach to direct discrimination, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved facts from which unlawful discrimination could be inferred, and in any event the respondent had shown that the conduct and the dismissal were not because of race. The claims were dismissed in full and no award was made.