Claimant v Octaga Security Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out by Employment Judge Hutchings on 21 January 2025 because the claimant did not have the required two years' service under section 98 ERA 1996, having worked from 8 November 2023 to 10 September 2024.
The tribunal concluded the real and only reason for termination was the claimant's conduct during the night shift on 2 September 2024 (failing to carry out patrols, removing shoes and socks, remaining stationary on a sofa for hours). There was no evidence from which an inference of race discrimination could be drawn. The claimant provided no comparator evidence and could not show his Moroccan ethnicity played any part in the decision.
The tribunal concluded the real and only reason for termination was the claimant's conduct during the night shift on 2 September 2024. There was no evidence from which an inference of religion discrimination could be drawn. Although the claimant mentioned a supervisor saying he 'prayed too much,' that supervisor had no involvement in the dismissal decision. The decision-maker, Ms Morris, acted on CCTV evidence and client complaint, not the claimant's religion (Islam).
Facts
The claimant, a Moroccan Muslim security officer on a zero-hours contract, was dismissed following a client complaint about his conduct during a night shift on 2 September 2024. CCTV footage showed him lying on a sofa with shoes and socks removed for at least two hours (from 3:35am to 5:34am), apparently failing to carry out required patrols. The client, Premier Foods, reported this to the respondent's Contracts Manager, who escalated it to HR. The Group Compliance Manager, Ms Morris, reviewed the evidence and decided to terminate the claimant's employment immediately. The claimant claimed he was dismissed because of his race and religion.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims of race and religion discrimination. It found the real and only reason for dismissal was the claimant's misconduct during the night shift—remaining stationary on a sofa with shoes and socks removed for hours, failing to patrol as required. There was no evidence from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn. The claimant provided no comparator and his allegations of discrimination by a supervisor earlier in his employment were irrelevant as that supervisor had no role in the dismissal decision.
Practical note
A discrimination claim will fail where the claimant cannot point to any evidence, beyond bare assertion, from which the tribunal could infer that a protected characteristic played any part in the decision to dismiss—credible evidence of misconduct will be a complete answer.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011806/2024
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Security Officer
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No