Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

Tribunal found the claimant was subjected to multiple racist comments by colleagues including being called 'black c*nt' on several occasions, was ostracised by staff due to his race, and that his grievance against CM Richardson (who lied about a meeting and falsified documents) was ignored while complaints against the claimant were immediately investigated. The tribunal found a pattern of less favourable treatment because of race, including the respondent's failure to discipline officers who made racist remarks while immediately suspending and investigating the claimant for allegations which were not credible.

Tribunal found the claimant was subjected to unwanted conduct related to race, including racist remarks ('black c*nt', 'dirty money grabbing black c*nt', 'lazy black c*nt') which had the effect of violating his dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading and offensive environment. The tribunal found the claimant's perception was genuine and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Tribunal found a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence through a course of conduct including: racist remarks by colleagues, the respondent ignoring the claimant's grievance against CM Richardson (who lied and falsified documents) for over 2 years while immediately investigating complaints against the claimant, ostracising the claimant, and the 'last straw' of accepting Michelle Hodgkinson's false allegation about the bed watch incident despite independent witness evidence supporting the claimant. The claimant resigned on 30 June 2023 in response to these breaches without affirming the contract (he went off sick after the last straw and never returned to work at HMP Swaleside).

Tribunal found the claimant did not discharge his burden of proving the alleged detriments occurred because of the protected act (grievance against CM Richardson on 1 January 2022). Many of the alleged acts predated the protected act, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the protected act and the alleged detriments.

The constructive dismissal was unfair. The respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through a course of discriminatory conduct, failing to investigate the claimant's grievances while immediately investigating complaints against him, and accepting false allegations about him. The claimant was entitled to resign without notice and did not affirm the contract.