Claimant v G4S Care and Justice Services (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
All claims against the First Respondent were withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on 22 August 2024.
The tribunal found that the Second Respondent's failure to investigate the complaint was not because of race but due to failings of employees who did not realise investigators had departed. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010, merely asserting his protected characteristic was insufficient.
The tribunal found the Third Respondent was not liable because no investigation was requested, the resignation letter did not require one, and the complaint concerned a Vinci manager not employed by or agent of the Third Respondent. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof.
The refusal of an early break was by a Vinci manager, not anyone employed by or for whose actions the Third Respondent would be vicariously liable. Therefore the Third Respondent cannot be held liable for the Vinci manager's actions.
The tribunal had no evidence before it to enable it to consider or quantify the holiday pay claim. Neither the witness statement nor schedule of loss set out any basis for the claim and it was nowhere quantified. The claim was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Facts
The claimant, a black man, worked briefly for the First and Third Respondents escorting contractors at prisons. He resigned on 15 December 2022 after an incident on 14 December where a Vinci manager refused to let him take an additional break to contact payroll about incorrect pay. He complained in writing that day and alleged discrimination. He withdrew claims against the First Respondent. Claims against the Second and Third Respondents concerned failure to investigate his complaint and refusal of a break, all alleged as race discrimination, plus an unpaid holiday pay claim.
Decision
All claims dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof under section 136 Equality Act 2010, as merely asserting his protected characteristic was insufficient. The Second Respondent's failure to investigate was due to personnel changes, not race. The Third Respondent was not liable for the Vinci manager's actions as vicarious liability did not apply. The holiday pay claim failed for lack of evidence.
Practical note
Merely asserting a protected characteristic without more is insufficient to shift the burden of proof in discrimination claims, and employers are not vicariously liable for actions of third-party contractors' managers.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3315477/2022
- Decision date
- 3 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Escort for contractors at prison
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No