Member R Martin Tribunal Member J McCullagh Mr Baasit Kareem v NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd — 2024

The claimant, Mr Baasit Kareem, was employed by NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd as a Project Manager from 22 September 2021 in the Currency Template Team. The tribunal found that from around June 2022 he began making a series of untrue allegations to colleagues, and that his behaviour escalated through late 2022 and early 2023. It accepted evidence that he became increasingly agitated at work, including incidents on 20 January 2023 and 9 February 2023 in which he banged on and kicked his desk and used threatening language. He was suspended on 13 February 2023, an occupational health report dated 21 February 2023 said he was likely to be a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 and fit for work, and after investigation he was summarily dismissed on 24 April 2023. His appeal was refused on 24 May 2023.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's account of race-related mistreatment. It found his evidence unreliable and accepted the respondent's witnesses as credible and consistent. In particular, it found that allegations that colleagues had posted about him online, referred to him as 'the black guy', used gestures or sign language to convey messages about him, or coerced him into social situations were not proved. Contemporaneous messages from Ms Morrison were treated as supportive of the claimant rather than racist, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent's managers were trying to assist him, including by discussing mental health support, employee assistance, occupational health, and lighter duties.

On the direct discrimination and harassment issues, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established facts from which race discrimination could be inferred, and in any event the respondent proved that race played no part in the decisions. It found that the dismissal followed the claimant's conduct, especially the incident on 9 February 2023, and that a hypothetical comparator without the protected characteristic would also have been dismissed. The harassment claim failed for the same reasons: the tribunal did not find unwanted conduct related to race that created the statutory environment, and it considered the respondent's conduct to be aimed at support and management of behaviour rather than race-based treatment.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant had not done a protected act in sufficiently clear terms because his complaints were framed as general allegations about racism in society, not a complaint that the respondent had breached the Equality Act 2010. Even if there had been a protected act, the tribunal found that the only reason for the disciplinary process, dismissal, and appeal outcome was the claimant's increasingly aggressive behaviour and its effect on staff. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed. The tribunal noted that, if jurisdiction on pre-26 February 2023 matters had mattered, it would have been just and equitable to extend time, but that did not alter the merits outcome.