(sitting alone) Santosh Chima v Represented by: Ms J Merchant, Solicitor Tayside Health Board — 2022

At a preliminary hearing on 31 January 2022, Employment Judge M Sutherland considered the respondent's application for deposits in relation to the claimant's complaints of direct race discrimination, victimisation, and harassment. The claimant remained employed by Tayside Health Board as Head of Corporate Equalities and said that the fact and manner of her suspension and investigation amounted to less favourable treatment because of her race, unwanted conduct related to race, and victimisation because she had brought a prior discrimination claim. The respondent accepted her protected characteristic and protected act but resisted the complaints and relied, among other things, on a white manager who had been treated similarly in relation to the same third-party allegations.

Applying Rule 39 and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Shamoon, Madarassy, Wright, Hemdan, Chandhok, Igen, Efobi, Van Rensburg, and Gumbs, the tribunal held that, taking the complaints at their highest, there was a reasonable basis to conclude that each had little reasonable prospect of success. It found that the fact that the claimant was the only ethnic minority Head of Service, and the only Head of Service treated in this way, did not by itself provide a basis from which it could reasonably infer that the treatment was because of race or the protected act. On that basis, it concluded that she had not articulated a prima facie complaint of direct discrimination, victimisation, or harassment.

The tribunal also considered material relied on beyond the pleadings, including the claimant's own application for disclosure and the respondent's further particulars about a white Head of Service who had been suspended and investigated in similar but not identical circumstances. It accepted, for the purpose of the application, that a white direct report had been treated in the same way in respect of the same allegations and that some white managers had not been suspended in similar situations, but held that these matters still did not allow a reasonable inference that the claimant's treatment was because of race or a prior tribunal claim. Having considered the claimant's finances, including net monthly pay of £2,750, monthly outgoings of £1,700, and no savings, the tribunal ordered deposits of £250 for each complaint, a total of £750.