Claimant v Amicus Trust Limited

Allegations upheld were found to be harassment rather than direct discrimination. Where allegations were not upheld, less favourable treatment on racial grounds was not established.

Tribunal found unwanted conduct related to race including comments about Mrs Uwimana's hair comparing it to a bush, forest, and bird's nest; Service Users asking if there were schools in Africa and telling her she cannot be seen at night; and Ms Williams saying she was paranoid and bored of her accusations. This created a degrading and hostile environment.

Allegations relating to 12 May and 14 May were upheld but found to be harassment rather than direct discrimination. The comment by Mrs Park on 21 May was not a detriment and was intended to help, so did not amount to direct discrimination.

On 12 May 2021, Ms Williams said a Service User making an inappropriate gesture was 'just being silly' and to 'brush it off'. On 14 May, Mr Muir and Ms Williams discouraged Mrs Uwimana from making a formal complaint. This conduct had the effect of violating Mrs Uwimana's dignity, was degrading, humiliating and offensive, suggesting she should put up with such a crude gesture.

Protected acts established by emails of 10 April, 17 May and conversation with Ms Williams on 20 May raising race discrimination concerns. Detriments found: Ms Williams telling Mrs Uwimana on 20 May she was 'fucking paranoid' and bored of her accusations, and spreading rumours to Service Users that she had been sacked for being racist. These were because of the protected acts.

Although the Respondent had constructive knowledge of Mrs Uwimana's PTSD disability, the alleged PCP (not investigating grievances properly) was a one-off instance specific to Mrs Uwimana, not an established provision, criterion or practice. No evidence of a practice or policy that would apply going forward.

For Miss Fenna's direct associative race discrimination claim: the allegation of being told to 'fuck off' on 20 May was found to be harassment, not direct discrimination. Mr Kingsbury did not make jokes following the 20 May altercation as alleged.

Ms Williams made numerous unwanted racial comments about black colleagues including describing a black maintenance man as useless because he can't speak English; derogatory comments about Mrs Uwimana and Ms Nyarko's appearance; saying Mrs Uwimana was 'complaining about the white people'; referring to Miss Levy as 'King Kong' and 'Nutty Professor'; making remarks about 'foreigners'. Miss Fenna found this offensive and it created a hostile environment for her. Though Miss Fenna is white, she could suffer harassment related to the race of her black colleague.

The alleged conduct (Ms Williams' comments about the Service User's gesture) was directed at Mrs Uwimana, not Miss Fenna. There was no evidence these things were said to or in front of Miss Fenna, so it was not unwanted conduct toward her and did not create the proscribed atmosphere for her.

The allegation of Ms Williams telling Mrs Uwimana the Service User was being silly and to brush it off was treatment of Mrs Uwimana, not treatment of Miss Fenna, so could not be less favourable treatment of Miss Fenna.

Protected act established when Miss Fenna said on 21 May she had noticed racism in the workplace. Detriments found: unfriendly glances from Mrs Park and Mrs Williams; concerns about Mrs Park's involvement in investigation were overruled; false allegation made that she had given or sold hash cakes to clients. Timing shortly after protected act, false minutes, Mrs Williams' character, and falsity of hash cakes allegation shifted burden. Respondent failed to show protected act played no part, so victimisation established.