Case 4100234/2022 · Employment Tribunal
: I Ashraf J Burnett Mr K Mcconachie v Whitbread Group plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 4100234/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus Members
- Venue
- person in Glasgow
- Panel members
- I Ashraf, J Burnett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: I Ashraf J Burnett Mr K Mcconachie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who identifies as a gay man, was subjected to homophobic abuse by hotel guests during his work as Duty Manager on 8 October 2021. The Tribunal considered the respondent's support during and after the incident, the return to work and welfare meetings, discussions about transfer, and the move to a Team Member role.
The Tribunal found that there were failings in how the respondent dealt with the situation, including no follow-up conversation about the incident, no contact from Safety and Security, no proper exploration of the claimant's anxiety or support needs, and no return to work meeting in November 2021. It accepted that the respondent had not treated the incident as serious and that there appeared to be a lack of regard for mental health issues on the evidence before it.
However, the Tribunal found no direct evidence that the treatment was because of the claimant's sexual orientation, and concluded that sexual orientation was not a significant influence on the respondent's treatment of him. The victimisation claim also failed because the Tribunal found that completing the incident report form was not a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010, so the claimant could not have been subjected to a detriment because of such an act.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found failings in the respondent's handling of the aftermath of the 8 October 2021 incident, but did not find that the claimant's sexual orientation was a significant influence on the treatment complained of. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | Claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that completion of the incident report form was logging the incident and was not a protected act within section 27. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment
- Equal Treatment Benchbook
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Barton Guidelines
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Miller v Minister of Pensions
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Villalba v Merrill Lynch & Co Inc
- Garrett v Lidl Ltd
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
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.