Mr R Barr v Easyjet Airline Company Limited — 2025

Mr R Barr brought claims arising from his dismissal by Easyjet Airline Company Limited. At the start of the final hearing the tribunal refused to admit late video and audio recordings because they had only recently been raised and the respondent had not had a proper chance to consider them. The tribunal noted that the claimant had previously received a final written warning in September 2022 for unwanted sexualised and harassment-related conduct, and then a counselling/advice intervention in December 2023 after an anonymous complaint. The dismissal decision followed a July 2024 customer complaint and a further crew complaint about inappropriate comments and conduct on board.

Applying the Burchell test and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that Easyjet had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. It rejected the claimant’s arguments about missing documents, bias, lack of consistency, confidentiality issues, and time pressure in the disciplinary process. The tribunal found that many of the documents now relied on had not been requested before the hearing, that the claimant had himself volunteered some of the comments later relied on, and that the appeal manager was entitled to rely on the customer complaint and witness evidence. It also held that the sanction of dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses, particularly because the tribunal treated this as repeat conduct of a similar nature, and it referred to Airbus UK Ltd v Webb in relation to the relevance of earlier misconduct.

The direct discrimination claim based on sexual orientation failed under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment because of sexual orientation and had not produced evidence of a comparator in the same or similar circumstances. The separate sex discrimination claim had already been withdrawn and dismissed at the preliminary hearing on 26 March 2025. The written-reasons complaint under sections 92 and 93 ERA 1996 also failed: the tribunal found that the claimant had not clearly requested written reasons, and even if he had, the statement of reasons was issued only eight days late after he had been told in advance that the decision-maker would be on leave. The tribunal therefore dismissed all remaining claims and made no award.