Claimant v R1

The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to numerous detriments for making protected disclosures about the treatment of a vulnerable colleague (Person A) by R4, including removal from management systems, suspension on fabricated allegations, and malicious criminal complaints made to the police. The respondents retaliated by constructing false grounds for dismissal after the claimant raised safeguarding concerns.

The tribunal found the claimant suffered victimisation detriments including being laughed at during the disciplinary hearing, dismissal, malicious police reports for theft, and an appalling false allegation that he encouraged Person A into prostitution — all in retaliation for protected acts including raising grievances about R4's discriminatory conduct and abuse of a vulnerable colleague.

R4 persistently made sexually inappropriate comments to the claimant including calling him 'Sexy Legs', sent images of himself watching CCTV from the bath, asked if claimant wanted a threesome, discussed graphic sexual activity with a colleague, and removed his clothing in front of the claimant. This created a degrading and humiliating environment.

R4 made homophobic comments including cutting someone out of his life for being gay, told the claimant he reacted like a 'pussy' and 'wimp', routinely impersonated a gay colleague in a derogatory manner, and expressed surprise that a new gay employee was 'nice' and didn't 'behave or sound like a gay person'. This demonstrated extreme prejudice.

R4 typically referred to a Romanian colleague as 'the Romanian Cunt' or 'the Romanian Bastard' and requested not to be rostered on the same shift. This was demeaning, humiliating and demonstrated racial prejudice.

R4 refused to use the correct name and pronouns for a trans colleague, customarily referred to them as 'the heshe', asked what genitalia they thought the person had, and requested not to work the same shifts. This was deeply disrespectful and discriminatory.

R4 told the claimant (who had diagnosed Generalised Anxiety Disorder) that he no longer wished to recruit individuals with mental health problems and referred to the store as a 'mental health boys club', then said 'no offence' knowing full well the claimant had mental health issues. This was deplorable and shocking conduct.

The claimant was dismissed under s.103A ERA 1996 for making protected disclosures. The respondents constructed fabricated allegations of theft and gross misconduct in retaliation for the claimant raising safeguarding concerns about R4's treatment of Person A and discriminatory conduct. The disciplinary process was a sham.

The claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice but was only paid two weeks upon dismissal, constituting wrongful dismissal. This loss was calculated within the compensatory award under s.124 EQA 2010.