Claimant v Conde Nast Publications Ltd

The tribunal considered 39 separate allegations of race discrimination. None were upheld. The tribunal found that the claimant had difficulty dispassionately identifying discriminatory treatment and that more than belief is needed for claims to succeed. Key allegations regarding racial profiling by security guard Tony Batalha were rejected on the evidence.

The tribunal considered 39 separate allegations of sex discrimination. None were upheld. Many of the claimant's actual comparators were female, which negated sex discrimination claims. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that any treatment was because of the claimant's sex.

The tribunal applied the three-part test for harassment under s26 EqA: unwanted conduct, related to race, with proscribed purpose or effect. The tribunal found that while some conduct may have been unwanted, it was not related to the claimant's race or did not have the requisite purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment.

The tribunal found that the alleged conduct did not meet the legal test for harassment related to sex. The conduct was not related to the claimant's sex or did not have the purpose or effect of violating her dignity or creating a hostile environment within the meaning of s26 EqA.

The tribunal accepted that several of the claimant's complaints qualified as protected acts, including her 17 March 2023 grievance about Tony Batalha and her participation in a D&I zoom call on 5 May 2023. However, the tribunal found that none of the alleged detriments occurred because the claimant had done a protected act.