Victim of Workplace Race-Related Harassment Receives Compensation

Victims of workplace harassment sadly often fear the consequences of rocking the boat, but there are very good reasons why they should consult a solicitor straight away. The point was made by the case of an administrative assistant who took action after a colleague denigrated her Chinese…

Mar 07, 2022

After she mentioned her grandmother’s Chinese descent in the office, her colleague responded with the words: ‘Does she own a chip shop? All Chinese own chip shops.’ She was embarrassed, upset and offended by the remark. She resigned some months later and launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings.

Her employer at the time accepted that the colleague’s derogatory comment was an act of harassment that was related to race. It argued, however, that all reasonable steps had been taken to prevent him from making such remarks. It asserted that all its staff were required to undergo equality and diversity training, together with refresher courses.

Ruling on the matter, the ET noted that there was no evidence that the colleague in fact underwent such training. His tendency to make inappropriate comments was known to his line manager. Although she would intervene if she thought he was about to say something offensive, it should have been apparent to her that he had not taken on board any equality and diversity training he had received and did not appreciate the effect of his remarks on others.

The ET was satisfied that the employer’s equality and diversity policies had not been enforced sufficiently robustly in relation to the colleague. It would have been reasonably practicable for the employer to ask him to do the training, or to do it again, and to have told him in terms to stop making inappropriate comments.

The woman’s claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, victimisation and further allegations of harassment did not succeed. However, in relation to the colleague’s remark and its effect on her, she was awarded £8,500 for injury to her feelings. With interest, her total award came to £9,491.

Postman Sacked Following Flawed Investigation Wins Unfair Dismissal Claim

A finding of dishonesty against an employee is a grave matter that is highly likely to negatively impact on their future working life. In upholding a postman’s unfair dismissal claim, an Employment Tribunal (ET) emphasised that such a finding can only be justified following a thorough and reasonable investigation. The postman was accused of stealing a letter from a bank that had been left sticking out of a householder’s letterbox. The evidence against him included CCTV footage from a video…

ET Failed to Consider Whether Rejecting Claim Was in Interests of Justice

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that, when rejecting a woman’s claim because the name of the respondent on the claim form did not match the name of the employer on the early conciliation certificate, the Employment Tribunal (ET) erred in law in failing to consider whether it was in the interests of justice to reject the claim. The woman had been dismissed from her job as a sales associate. She considered her dismissal to be unfair and/or discriminatory. She received an early…

What is a Detriment? EAT Ruling Clearly Sets Out the Correct Legal Test

The question of whether someone has suffered a ‘detriment’ is the central issue in a great many employment cases where discrimination or victimisation is alleged. In an important decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has given authoritative guidance on the correct legal test to be applied in such cases. When applying to become a police officer, a man at the outset disclosed to the force concerned that he was in the process of pursuing an employment claim against another force, alleging…