Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found claimant did not meet initial burden of proof on any allegation. No good evidence that decisions on leave refusals, attendance warnings, or partial retirement were influenced by claimant's race. Decisions were based on respondent's policies (Rule of Four, Attendance Management Policy, new Detail/Invision roster approval requirements).
Tribunal found no evidence that any of the alleged conduct was related to claimant's race. Accepted respondent's non-discriminatory explanations for all actions: adherence to annual leave rules, application of attendance management policy, enforcement of new roster approval process through Detail/Invision system.
Tribunal found no evidence that claimant's protected acts (grievances of 26 June 2018 and 11 February 2022) influenced any of the alleged detriments. Significant time gaps between protected acts and alleged detriments. Tribunal accepted non-discriminatory reasons: voucher forgotten due to COVID-19 pressures, partial retirement decisions based on new policy requiring Detail approval, grievance rejection based on fair investigation.
Facts
Claimant, an Asian Indian OSG employed since 1997 at HMP Feltham, alleged race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation spanning 2018-2022. Key allegations included refusal of annual leave in 2018-2019, imposition of attendance warnings in 2020 and 2022, and most significantly, the rejection of his partial retirement application in 2021-2022. A new policy implemented in September 2020 required all partial retirement rosters to be approved by the Detail/Invision computer system. The claimant produced his own roster with help from his union representative, but this was rejected because it had not been approved by Detail. Two key respondent witnesses (CP and FR) were unable to attend due to illness, and their statements were given limited weight.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found no evidence that the claimant's race influenced any of the decisions. Annual leave refusals were due to the 'Rule of Four' policy being exceeded; attendance warnings were within the band of reasonable responses under the Attendance Management Policy; and the partial retirement rejection was because the claimant's proposed roster had not been approved by Detail as required by the new policy. The tribunal found no continuing act and refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds for out-of-time claims, citing significant prejudice to the respondent from witness unavailability and fading memories.
Practical note
Employment tribunals will scrutinise whether managerial decisions that appear harsh or rigid were genuinely motivated by protected characteristics or simply reflected strict policy adherence; poor communication of new workplace policies does not transform policy-compliant decisions into discrimination; and significant delays in bringing claims, even where internal processes are exhausted, risk refusal of time extensions where witness evidence has been prejudiced.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302063/2023
- Decision date
- 15 July 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Justice
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Operational Support Grade (OSG)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor