Claimant v Carlisle Support Services Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out the direct discrimination claim relating to dismissal from assignment at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium because the claimant did not allege that any employee of the respondent made the decision to dismiss him. The allegations were made against employees of Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, not the respondent, and the claimant failed to establish any connection between the respondent and the dismissal decision.
The tribunal struck out the discrimination arising from disability claim concerning the entrance security lodge because the allegation was made against Tottenham Hotspur Stadium employee Mr O'Donnell, not any employee of the respondent. The claimant spoke to Mr O'Donnell about the lodge affecting his mental health, but this complaint was not directed at the respondent.
Facts
The claimant worked as a security officer for a national security services provider from January 2023. He was assigned to Tottenham Hotspur Stadium training ground and complained about working conditions in the entrance security lodge affecting his mental health due to his disability of depression and anxiety. He was subsequently removed from the assignment. The claimant raised a grievance but did not attend grievance meetings. The respondent applied to strike out his discrimination claims.
Decision
The tribunal struck out two claims: direct discrimination relating to dismissal from the Tottenham assignment, and discrimination arising from disability regarding the entrance security lodge. Both were struck out because the allegations were made against employees of the client (Tottenham Hotspur Stadium) rather than the respondent. However, the tribunal refused to strike out the claim that the respondent failed to deal with the claimant's grievance, finding factual disputes required evidence to resolve.
Practical note
Discrimination claims must be directed at the employer's conduct; allegations solely against client employees without establishing employer involvement will be struck out, even where the employer allegedly failed to respond to such discrimination.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311668/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Security Officer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No