Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

The tribunal found the Claimant provided no evidence that any of the incidents outlined were because of his race. All decisions were explained by reference to the Claimant's performance and behaviour towards colleagues. No evidence of facts from which discrimination could be inferred.

The tribunal found no evidence that the decisions to give warnings or dismiss were motivated by the Claimant's age (over 40). The treatment was because of repeated inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues, not age.

The tribunal found no evidence that decisions were motivated by the Claimant's sex. Although complaints came from women, the Respondents did not view the Claimant's behaviour as gender-based. A woman who made colleagues feel the same would have been treated identically.

The tribunal found the Claimant had not established that any of the incidents related to his race. No context was provided to show conduct related to race either overtly or by implication. The conduct was unwanted but not related to the protected characteristic.

The tribunal found no evidence that the conduct related to the Claimant's age. All actions by managers were explained by reference to performance and behaviour, not age. No evidence of connection to age was provided.

The tribunal found that while a comment by Ms Jackson suggested awareness of how the Claimant behaved with women, this related to her perception of his behaviour, not his sex. The investigation and management actions were because of his aggressive behaviour, not his sex.

The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, a potentially fair reason. The investigation was thorough, Ms Frost reasonably believed the misconduct occurred, the Claimant had a final written warning for similar behaviour, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. Procedural flaws were minor.