Claimant v Close Brothers Vehicle Hire Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove facts from which it could decide that any of the alleged conduct was less favourable treatment because of race. The tribunal found that many of the alleged comments were not made at all. Where conduct did occur (such as checking the claimant's screen or managing her lunch breaks), the tribunal found this was normal workplace supervision unrelated to race. The tribunal noted that at the time of her original complaint, the claimant herself did not consider she had been subjected to race discrimination, only coming to that view when her parents told her she had. None of the allegations, save one comment about Jamaica, were inherently referable to race. The burden of proof never shifted to the respondent, but even if it had, the respondent discharged it by showing the treatment was not because of race.
Facts
The claimant, a 16-year-old Black Jamaican-British apprentice, worked for the respondent's finance department from December 2022 to March 2023. She complained in February 2023 about comments made by her manager Emma Motlib relating to her father and family circumstances, and workplace supervision issues. The claimant's parents then alleged race discrimination and insisted she not return to work pending investigation. The respondent investigated the complaint but found no evidence of discrimination. The claimant ended her apprenticeship in March 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all 21 allegations of direct race discrimination. The tribunal found the claimant was not a credible witness, noting she had excellent recall only on matters supporting her case and confirmed in cross-examination that she did not consider the treatment to be race discrimination at the time, only adopting that view when her parents told her she had been discriminated against. The tribunal found that where conduct did occur, it was normal workplace supervision unrelated to race, and many of the alleged comments were not made at all. The burden of proof never shifted to the respondent.
Practical note
A claimant's credibility is severely undermined where they confirm in evidence that they did not consider treatment to be discriminatory at the time, only adopting that view later on the suggestion of others, and where allegations lack any inherent connection to the protected characteristic.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2601127/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Finance Assistant (Apprentice)
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep