Mr F Warrener-Iglesias v Coretech Security Services Limited — 2023

Mr F Warrener-Iglesias was employed by Coretech Security Services Limited from 2 August 2021 to 3 October 2022 as a Vulnerability Researcher. After his Enhanced Developed Vetting application was rejected, the Respondent dismissed him because it said no suitable non-clearance role was available. The tribunal also noted that parts of the Claimant’s witness statement had been drafted using ChatGPT; it accepted that the substantive content came from him, but gave less weight to generic GPT-generated passages.

Applying s.10 EqA 2010 and the Grainger criteria, the tribunal held that none of the four asserted beliefs amounted to a philosophical belief. Belief 1 was treated as criticisms of the vetting process and possible bias, based on limited information and too specific to the Claimant’s own working environment. Belief 2 was unclear and tailored to the dismissal dispute, and the tribunal found no sufficiently coherent or weighty general belief in a right to associate or be perceived to associate with others. Belief 3, framed as personal development, responsibility and positive masculinity, was too vague in the form advanced, and there was no evidence about the beliefs or messages represented by Andrew Tate to support a defined philosophical belief. Belief 4 was held to be no more than an opinion that it is unfair to be penalised for asking questions or revealing information at work.

Because none of the asserted beliefs were protected, the complaints of direct discrimination and harassment were dismissed. The victimisation complaint was struck out: although the tribunal did not rule out that the 12 October 2022 letter could amount to a protected act at a final hearing, the chronology meant the alleged withdrawal of the dismissal offer came first, and the later statement that correspondence was closing did not create a new detriment. The tribunal recorded that the Respondent later re-opened the offer and that the Claimant was ultimately paid the additional two months’ pay and £135.60 in respect of private medical insurance, but no award was made.

The breach of contract claim was also struck out. The tribunal found there was no concluded contractual commitment to continue AXA medical cover until 26 February 2023, and in any event any such post-termination arrangement would not fall within the tribunal’s breach of contract jurisdiction because it did not arise on termination of employment.