Case 3321331/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Jones For the v Mr Alex Francis — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321331/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms Costley, Mr Mizon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Jones For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as a transport administrator from around October 2017 until dismissal with effect from 15 March 2019. He claimed that, as a white British worker, he had been subjected to race-related harassment and direct discrimination through workplace comments and that his dismissal was also discriminatory. The tribunal found the evidence on both sides limited in places, but it accepted that comments were made by various employees and that the respondent had not produced all of the witness and HR evidence that might have been expected.
On the harassment claim, the tribunal found that comments alleged in the proceedings were made, including by reasonably senior employees, and that the comments combined over time created an adverse environment related to race. It held that the conduct was unwanted and, taking account of the context, was serious enough to create a hostile and/or intimidating environment. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant perceived the conduct as having that effect and that it was reasonable to regard it as harassment. Time was extended on a just and equitable basis because the harassment formed part of the same overall ET1, the last act was only about a month out of time, and the respondent was not disadvantaged.
The direct discrimination claim succeeded only in relation to the workplace comments. The tribunal found those comments amounted to less favourable treatment by reason of race, but it rejected the allegation that the dismissal itself was an act of race discrimination. On dismissal, the tribunal accepted that some issues had been raised with the claimant about performance, sickness absence and timekeeping, and it found the evidence about the dismissal confusing and incomplete. It concluded that the claimant had not proved facts from which race discrimination in the dismissal could be inferred.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been provided with written particulars of employment. It awarded £2,500 for injury to feelings at the lower end of the low Vento band in respect of the race discrimination and harassment findings, and £961.74, described as two weeks gross pay, for the written particulars issue. The tribunal made a declaration that the claimant had suffered unlawful race discrimination and harassment in the course of his employment in the form of discriminatory comments, and the total award was £3,461.74.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Race-related harassment based on workplace comments made by several reasonably senior employees between February 2018 and February 2019; the tribunal extended time as just and equitable. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination succeeded only in relation to the workplace comments, not the dismissal; the injury to feelings award was not split between the discrimination and harassment findings. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The allegation that dismissal was because of race failed; the tribunal accepted there were some issues about performance, sickness absence and timekeeping and found no sufficient basis to infer discriminatory dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment under s.38; the tribunal awarded two weeks gross pay. | Upheld | — | £962 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,462
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £962
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Barton v Investec Securities Ltd
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.