Claimant v Window Widgets Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Respondent's strike-out application was refused. The tribunal found that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of establishing harassment related to race. The claimant's case was that seeing graffiti stating 'SLAVE NO 3' on a label in the warehouse where he was the only black man amounted to unwanted conduct that related to race and had the effect of violating his dignity or creating a hostile environment. While the respondent asserted lack of knowledge of the graffiti and provided an alternative explanation, the tribunal held these were factual disputes requiring determination at a full hearing.
Respondent's strike-out application was refused. While the tribunal acknowledged the claimant would likely have difficulties establishing less favourable treatment because of race given the employer's asserted lack of knowledge of the graffitied label, this remained a factual dispute. The claimant disputed the respondent's explanation for the graffiti, and viewed objectively the graffiti could be considered racist. The facts needed to be determined at a full hearing before a decision could be reached.
Facts
The claimant, the only black man in the respondent's warehouse, saw a graffitied label stating 'SLAVE NO 3' on 18 December 2023. He did not report it but resigned in early January 2024 without citing this as a reason. The respondent explained that a former employee had vandalised the warehouse in 2022 with anti-modern slavery messages as protest against staff exploitation, and this label had been missed during clean-up. The respondent applied to strike out claims of harassment and direct race discrimination, arguing no reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
The tribunal refused the strike-out application. Judge Bradford held that while the claimant might face difficulties establishing direct discrimination given the employer's asserted lack of knowledge, there were significant factual disputes requiring determination at a full hearing. The claimant had reasonable prospects of establishing harassment related to race, as the graffiti could objectively be considered racist and relate to race, and whether it was reasonable for it to have the effect claimed required hearing and testing evidence.
Practical note
Employers defending strike-out applications in race discrimination cases face a high bar, particularly where graffiti or language has objective racial connotations and significant factual disputes exist about knowledge and context.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000735/2024
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- warehouse worker
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No