Member D Calderwood Tribunal Member J Ward Mr M Naeem v Represented by: Mr M Ross - Solicitor Teleperformance Ltd — 2022

The claimant, who was of Pakistani ethnicity, brought direct race discrimination and victimisation claims arising from his employment as a customer service representative at the respondent's Airdrie call centre and his summary dismissal on 10 February 2020. The tribunal identified four alleged race discrimination acts: alleged denial of floor-walking opportunities, the decision on 31 January 2020 to begin a disciplinary investigation, the dismissal, and an alleged failure to follow the disciplinary procedure. It also identified corresponding victimisation allegations said to arise from the claimant's grievance of 19 March 2019 about David Lally, which the respondent accepted was a protected act.

On the race discrimination claim, the tribunal dismissed the floor-walking allegation because the claimant did not prove facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred. It found he had received at least four floor-walking opportunities between 27 December 2019 and 16 January 2020, but there was no evidence of the relevant targets, no evidence about other employees' treatment or ethnicities, and no basis for a comparison with a white British comparator. The tribunal also found, on the balance of probabilities, that the investigation decision and the dismissal were taken because of the claimant's handling of the 28 January 2020 call, against the background of an earlier discussion about a 17 January 2020 call, and were in no sense whatsoever connected to his race.

The tribunal accepted that the letter inviting the claimant to the disciplinary hearing on 10 February 2020 did not specify the allegation with sufficient detail and that this was a flaw in the application of the respondent's disciplinary policy. However, it found no less favourable treatment because of race in that process. It noted that the respondent had used similarly imperfectly worded hearing invites for white British employees in other cases, so there was no evidence that the claimant was treated differently because of his protected characteristic. Applying the burden of proof approach under s.136 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not established a prima facie case on that allegation.

On victimisation, the tribunal found no proved detriment in relation to floor-walking opportunities. It accepted that the inadequate specification of the disciplinary allegation in the 6 February 2020 letter was a detriment when viewed from the claimant's perspective, but found that it was not caused by the March 2019 grievance. The tribunal found that Mr Stewart and Ms McMillan were unaware of the grievance when the investigation, dismissal, and letter were dealt with, so the grievance played no part in their decisions. The claim was therefore dismissed in full.