Claimant v North Northamptonshire Council
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant withdrew unfair dismissal claim at commencement of final hearing. Claim dismissed upon withdrawal as claimant was not employed by respondent (was agency worker employed by Umbrella.co.uk).
Claimant withdrew breach of contract claim at commencement of final hearing. Claim dismissed upon withdrawal as claimant was not employed by respondent (was agency worker employed by Umbrella.co.uk).
Tribunal found that Mr Bowley was not a suitable comparator as his circumstances were materially different from the claimant's. Bowley was the supervisor with authority to dismiss, was defendant in MCOL claim (not claimant), and respondent defended because it was vicariously liable for Bowley's actions. Respondent's decision to provide legal support to Bowley was because of vicarious liability, not race. Respondent could not provide legal support to claimant due to conflict of interest. Requirements of s108(1)(b) and s13 Equality Act not satisfied.
Facts
The claimant, a black Caribbean gas engineer, worked as an agency worker for the respondent council from June to December 2023. His supervisor, Mr Bowley (also an agency worker), terminated his assignment on 21 December 2023 following concerns about the claimant's handling of a gas leak. The claimant issued a Money Claims Online claim for £3,115 against Mr Bowley personally for defamation and lost earnings. The respondent stepped in to defend the claim on Bowley's behalf, providing in-house legal representation, because it concluded it was vicariously liable for Bowley's actions as supervisor. The claimant alleged race discrimination, arguing the respondent supported a white worker (Bowley) but not him, a black worker.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were withdrawn. The race discrimination claim failed because Mr Bowley was not an appropriate comparator - his circumstances as the defendant supervisor were materially different from the claimant's as the pursuing party. The respondent's decision to defend was based on vicarious liability, not race, and it could not have assisted the claimant due to conflict of interest. The requirements of s108(1)(b) Equality Act were not satisfied.
Practical note
An agency worker cannot succeed in a post-employment discrimination claim where the alleged less favourable treatment arose from the employer defending a claim for which it was vicariously liable, particularly where providing equivalent support to the claimant would create a clear conflict of interest.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303701/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Gas engineer
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No