Mr O Hamouda v Southern Water Services Limited — 2026

Mr O Hamouda, who described himself as black, worked for Southern Water Services Ltd as a Carbon Data Analyst from 1 August 2022 until 8 January 2024. The tribunal unanimously upheld direct race discrimination complaints concerning the respondent initially seeking to dismiss him following a trip to South Sudan and his later constructive dismissal. It upheld harassment related to race concerning a disciplinary warning, false feedback leading to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), the PIP itself and a warning issued under that process. The other complaints pursued at the final hearing were dismissed.

Mr Hamouda travelled to South Sudan for his brother's funeral intending to work remotely. The tribunal accepted that he had not been told about an unwritten requirement to obtain permission to work abroad. His access to the respondent's systems was disabled, and he had not breached the bereavement policy because he was not requesting leave. The investigation report treated his absence as gross misconduct without identifying a specific rule he had breached. Two white employees who had worked abroad with permission were not valid actual comparators, but the tribunal found enough unexplained features of the investigation to shift the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010. The report's author was not called to give evidence, without explanation, and the respondent failed to provide a cogent non-discriminatory explanation. Initially seeking his dismissal was direct race discrimination. The unwarranted written warning issued on 31 March 2023 was harassment related to race.

The tribunal found that line manager Ana Maria Noguera supplied false and misleading feedback to HR about Mr Hamouda being rude and aggressive. Specific supporting examples were lacking, and the tribunal did not find the emails relied on to be rude when read fairly and objectively. Although it considered that there were probably some performance issues, it found that the PIP was unjustified and was not undertaken in good faith. There was no evidence of reviews, support or training during the process. Mr Hamouda's electronic signature was added to the PIP document by Ms Noguera or someone in HR without his agreement. Moving to the formal stage without a review and issuing a warning after only three working days of formal review were unreasonable. The feedback, PIP and warning created the unwanted environment required by s.26, and the respondent did not discharge the burden of showing that the conduct was unrelated to race.

The complaints about exclusion from meetings failed because the evidence did not establish which relevant meetings Mr Hamouda should have attended or support an inference of race discrimination or harassment. Gareth Winslade worked in a different role and team and was not a valid actual comparator. The alleged refusal to fund a NEBOSH qualification was not established: Ms Noguera had requested further information, and Mr Hamouda had not pursued the request. The evidence did not show that he was required to carry out work outside his role. Although Ms Noguera sometimes passed on his work without crediting him, the tribunal found no prima facie case that this, or criticism of inaccuracies and formatting issues, amounted to race discrimination or harassment.