Claimant v Carlisle Support Services Group Ltd

Tribunal found that comment 'I respect you because of your colour, but you are all male chauvinist pigs' was made but was not less favourable treatment (same comment made to comparators present) and was not made because of claimant's race. All other alleged discriminatory acts (2.2.2-2.2.10) either did not happen as alleged or had nothing to do with claimant's race. Burden of proof did not shift.

Tribunal accepted claimant was offended as a Muslim by the word 'pig' in 'male chauvinist pig' but found the comment was not made because of his religion. It was a stock phrase used to complain about sexism, addressed to multiple men of different religions. Other alleged acts (2.2.2-2.2.10) had nothing to do with claimant's religion. Burden of proof did not shift.

Tribunal found the unwanted conduct (being called 'male chauvinist pigs' and 'I hate you') was not related to the claimant's race. The comment 'I respect you because of your colour' indicated the subsequent remarks had nothing to do with race. The conduct did not violate dignity or create an intimidating environment; it was a one-off remark made in anger.

Tribunal accepted claimant was offended as a Muslim by use of the word 'pig' but found the conduct was not related to religion. 'Male chauvinist pig' is a stock phrase used to complain about sexism; it had no connection to religion in the speaker's mind or objectively. The conduct did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating environment.