Claimant v Environment Agency
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of race. Where facts established (e.g. use of word 'hustling' by Mr Hull, grievance dismissals), tribunal concluded treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of race. Tribunal found respondent's conduct was based on legitimate concerns about claimant's workplace behaviour and relationships with colleagues, not race.
Tribunal found conduct did not have proscribed purpose or effect, and was not reasonable for it to have had that effect. Critically, claimant conceded during cross-examination that Dr Jennings' conduct did not relate to race, saying 'Dr Jennings has never done anything to me that would be of race.' Burden of proof did not shift.
Protected act was issuing tribunal claim 31 January 2023. Tribunal found no causal link between protected act and alleged detriments (non-renewal of electrical authorisation, required meeting attendance, allegation of code of conduct breach). Decisions were for legitimate operational reasons unconnected to tribunal claim.
Facts
Claimant, a Black African MEICA Advisor employed from 2014 to 2024, brought claims of race discrimination, harassment and victimisation. He had ongoing difficulties with colleagues and managers, resulting in mediations, performance concerns, disciplinary proceedings and grievances. Key allegations included manager Neil Hull describing him as 'hustling' and saying he 'hollers', removal from team organogram, dismissal of grievances, non-renewal of electrical authorisation after bringing tribunal claim, and being required to attend meetings with senior manager Leigh Edlin.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Found claimant not a credible witness, accepting he had genuine workplace relationship difficulties for which he bore responsibility. Tribunal found use of word 'hustling' and 'hollers' were not racially motivated. Grievances were properly considered. Non-renewal of electrical authorisation was part of wider policy affecting multiple employees. No causal link established between tribunal claim and alleged victimisation. Claimant conceded during cross-examination that harassment allegation did not relate to race.
Practical note
Even where a claimant raises concerns about potentially racially charged language (e.g. 'hustling', 'hollers'), tribunals will examine context carefully and require cogent evidence of racial motivation; workplace relationship difficulties and performance management processes, even if contested, do not shift burden of proof without more.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2300498/2023
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Environment Agency
- Sector
- regulator
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- MEICA Advisor (mechanical engineer)
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No