Case 6000735/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fofana v Window Widgets Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000735/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fofana
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 21 January 2025, the tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out Mr S Fofana's direct race discrimination and harassment related to race claims under sections 13 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The claims arose from a graffitied label in the warehouse reading 'SLAVE NO' above a large number 3, which the claimant understood as 'slave number 3'. He said he felt targeted because he was the only black man in the warehouse, did not raise the matter on 18 December 2023 or afterwards, and resigned in early January 2024 without citing it as a reason. The respondent said the graffiti had been left by a former employee in 2022 as anti-modern slavery protest graffiti, was not a reference to historical enslavement, and had been missed by maintenance.
Applying rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and the two-stage approach confirmed in Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd, the tribunal held that the high threshold for strike out was not met. It accepted that the harassment claim was arguable: the claimant might prove unwanted conduct, 'slave' could objectively be derogatory to black people, and the effect and reasonableness of any hostile environment would need evidence. For direct race discrimination, the tribunal said the claimant would have difficulty because the respondent said it did not know about the label, but that remained a factual dispute for the final hearing. The respondent's application was refused, so neither claim was struck out and no remedy was awarded at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Respondent's strike-out application under rule 38(1)(a) was refused; the tribunal said the issue involved a factual dispute and was not satisfied the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | Race | — |
| Harassment | Respondent's strike-out application under rule 38(1)(a) was refused; the tribunal held the harassment claim was arguable, including that 'slave' could objectively be derogatory to black people, and that effect and reasonableness would need evidence at a final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 3 overriding objective
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA
- Hasan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- Ahir v British Airways PLC
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.