Claimant v Ricoh UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Unfair dismissal claim against First Respondent proceeding to final hearing. First Respondent relying on conduct as reason for dismissal.
Unfair dismissal claim against Second Respondent struck out as Second Respondent was not the Claimant's employer under s94(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, thus no reasonable prospect of success.
Struck out on 10 February 2025 for failure to comply with UNLESS Order requiring particulars of protected disclosures. Claimant repeatedly changed his account of disclosures even at this hearing and never provided clear particulars despite extensive documentation. Relief from sanction refused as not in interests of justice.
Direct race discrimination claim relating to dismissal proceeding against First Respondent. Claimant relies on comparator Mr Comeford who was allegedly not dismissed but moved off site for gross misconduct.
Race discrimination claim against Second Respondent struck out as no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant acknowledged First Respondent made the dismissal decision and decision not to dismiss comparator. No factual basis alleged for Second Respondent's involvement.
Struck out as no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant's alleged philosophical belief that 'there is no real requirement to wear ASOS uniform' and that he was 'protected by his Employment Contract & Employee Handbook' was an opinion on specific facts, not a philosophical belief satisfying Grainger criteria.
Struck out as no reasonable prospect of success. Based on same alleged philosophical belief regarding uniform which tribunal found was merely an opinion on specific factual circumstances, not a protected philosophical belief under Equality Act 2010 s10.
Struck out on 10 February 2025 for failure to comply with UNLESS Order requiring particulars of particular disadvantage. Claimant also explained he meant ASOS was implementing uniform policy 'indirectly' through Ricoh, showing claim was misconceived. Relief from sanction refused as claim misconceived and not in interests of justice.
Facts
Claimant was employed by Ricoh UK working at ASOS premises and dismissed on 19 March 2024 for alleged conduct. He brought claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, religion/belief discrimination and whistleblowing against both Ricoh and ASOS. At preliminary hearing on 20 January 2025, EJ Hodgson made UNLESS orders requiring Claimant to provide particulars of his philosophical belief, protected disclosures and particular disadvantage by 10 February 2025. Claimant only partially complied, providing details of alleged belief but not disclosures or particular disadvantage.
Decision
Tribunal permitted limited amendment to add particulars of philosophical belief but struck out most claims. Automatic unfair dismissal and indirect discrimination claims struck out for non-compliance with UNLESS orders. Religion/belief discrimination and harassment claims struck out as alleged belief was merely opinion on specific facts, not protected philosophical belief under Grainger. All claims against ASOS struck out as no reasonable prospect of success and out of time. Only unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims against Ricoh proceeding to final hearing.
Practical note
An employee's belief about the factual terms of their employment contract or whether a workplace requirement applies to them is an opinion on specific facts, not a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004535/2024
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Ricoh UK Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No