Mr Karon Byfield v Global Motoring Hub Ltd — 2023

The claimant worked for Global Motoring Hub Ltd as a MET technician from 5 October 2021 to 10 November 2021. The tribunal rejected the respondent's issue estoppel argument, then decided as a preliminary issue that the claimant had not proved that he had a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. It found that his seizure episodes were isolated and not shown to have a relevant ongoing impact on day-to-day activities, and that the evidence about PTSD, stress and mental health difficulties was insufficient to establish a qualifying mental impairment. Because disability was not proved, the disability-related harassment claim was dismissed without further consideration of the alleged incidents.

On the race harassment claim, the tribunal found that some unwanted conduct had occurred, but it was not related to race. It rejected the allegation that Mr Cosferent had pointed out fabricated faults to ridicule the claimant, finding instead that he had pointed out real faults in the claimant's work. It preferred Mr Leau's evidence about his comments to D on 15 October, found the Saturday-working discussions on 22 October were workplace discussions about policy, and found the 10 November probation meeting concerned performance and conduct. For the 28 October bumper comment, the tribunal found Mr Dojkov had said 'That's a stupid way to do a bumper' rather than 'stupid English'; even if the racial words had been said, the tribunal held that the section 26 purpose/effect threshold would not have been met.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the claimant did a protected act on 29 October 2021 when he reported that he had heard a discriminatory remark and said it was discrimination. It found that the 3 November start-time discussion and 5 November smoking-break discussion were not detriments to him, and that the 10 November probation review and dismissal were detriments. However, it held that the meeting and dismissal were not because of the protected act; they arose from the claimant's absence, performance, timekeeping and lack of contact, and the decision-maker had not been influenced by the protected act. The appeal and grievances raised after dismissal were not upheld.