Claimant v Parkwood Community Leisure Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant did not establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Key allegations were not supported: Mr Russell did not introduce himself to white colleague Ms Janetski either; working hours dispute showed consideration of childcare needs; spreadsheet sharing on Google Docs was not substantiated as discriminatory; dismissal was for gross misconduct (unauthorised use of electricity to charge vehicle) with reasonable grounds. The claimant's subjective belief was not supported by objective evidence. Applying Madarassy v Nomura, difference in status and treatment without more was insufficient.
The tribunal found the claimant did a protected act by raising a race discrimination grievance on 26 April 2023. However, suspension on 2 May 2023 and dismissal on 16 June 2023 were not causally linked to the protected act. Suspension followed a specific report from Ms Street about vehicle charging misconduct. Disciplinary process conducted by Mr Cleverly (not implicated in grievance) focused on misconduct allegations. No evidence Mr Russell knew of grievance when suspending. Proximity in time insufficient. On balance of probabilities, actions were because of genuine belief in gross misconduct, not the protected act.
Facts
The claimant, a Black maintenance engineer employed from March 2022 to June 2023 at The Hawth Theatre, raised a race discrimination grievance on 26 April 2023 alleging discriminatory treatment by new management. He was suspended on 2 May 2023 following allegations of unauthorised use of the respondent's electricity to charge his personal electric vehicle, and dismissed for gross misconduct on 16 June 2023. The claimant had insufficient service for unfair dismissal and brought claims of direct race discrimination and victimisation. The respondent's response was struck out for persistent failure to comply with case management orders, though limited participation was permitted.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed both claims. On race discrimination, the claimant failed to establish less favourable treatment because of race: Mr Russell also did not introduce himself to a white colleague, working hours changes showed consideration of childcare needs, and dismissal was for genuine gross misconduct (unauthorised vehicle charging). On victimisation, the suspension and dismissal were causally linked to the misconduct allegations, not to the protected act of raising a grievance. The claimant's subjective belief was insufficient without objective supporting evidence.
Practical note
A claimant's subjective belief in discrimination, even when coupled with being the only person of that protected characteristic in the workplace, is insufficient without objective evidence showing less favourable treatment was because of the protected characteristic rather than legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2303922/2023
- Decision date
- 5 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Maintenance Engineer
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No