Cases3303143/2024

Claimant v LHR Airports Ltd

27 February 2025Before Employment Judge AlliottWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Tribunal found claim had no reasonable prospect of success. Claimant was dismissed following investigation into serious allegations of sexual assault by a junior colleague. Contemporaneous complaint evidence existed, and claimant admitted being alone with the complainant. Any argument that dismissal was outside band of reasonable responses deemed doomed to failure, and 100% Polkey reduction would apply even if procedural defects established.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Tribunal found this was plainly just an assertion that treatment was on grounds of sex when it was clearly due to serious allegations of sexual misconduct. No more than assertion of difference in treatment and protected characteristic, insufficient to meet Madarassy threshold. No reasonable prospect of establishing the decision makers acted on grounds of sex rather than in response to the sexual assault allegations.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Amendment granted to add race discrimination claim, but immediately struck out. Tribunal found this was plainly just an assertion that treatment was on grounds of race when it was clearly due to serious allegations of sexual misconduct. Claimant had not raised race as an issue in either disciplinary or appeal hearings. No reasonable prospect of establishing racial motivation given the nature of the allegations and evidence base.

Facts

Claimant was suspended on 1 November 2023 following allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape by a junior female colleague. The incident allegedly occurred on 13 October 2023 in a restroom where claimant admitted being alone with the complainant. There was evidence of contemporaneous complaint to a colleague the next day. Following investigation and disciplinary hearing with full details provided to claimant, he was dismissed on 28 December 2023. His appeal on 14 February 2024 was unsuccessful.

Decision

Tribunal granted claimant's amendment application to add race discrimination claim but immediately struck out all three claims (unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and race discrimination) as having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found the decision makers had reasonable grounds to dismiss based on serious allegations with supporting evidence, and any discrimination claims were mere assertions unsupported by evidence that treatment was on grounds of sex or race rather than in response to the allegations themselves.

Practical note

Even in discrimination cases where tribunals should be cautious about strike-outs, claims will be struck out where they amount to nothing more than bare assertions of discriminatory treatment in the face of clear legitimate reasons for the employer's actions, particularly in serious misconduct cases with credible evidence.

Adjustments

Polkey reduction100%

Tribunal found it would be inevitable that with a fair procedure there was 100% certainty the claimant would have been dismissed in any event

Legal authorities cited

Behad v HSBC Bank Plc [2022] EAT 83Chandhok v Tirkey [2015] IRLR 195Mechkarov v Citybank NA [2016] ICR 1121Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 Rule 38(1)(a)

Case details

Case number
3303143/2024
Decision date
27 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister