Cases8000362/2023

Claimant v Edinburgh Napier University

16 January 2024Before Employment Judge A KempScotlandremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(age)struck out

The tribunal struck out the claim for having no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant had taken out a Stanley knife during a meeting with his manager, brandishing it and making stabbing motions. The tribunal held that the claimant had not pled any facts from which discrimination could be inferred, had not properly identified a comparator, and that the conduct admitted would lead any employer to dismiss regardless of age. The claimant's frustration and limited English did not establish a prima facie case that age was a reason for dismissal.

Direct Discrimination(disability)struck out

The tribunal struck out the claim for having no reasonable prospects of success on the same basis as the age discrimination claim. Despite disability status being accepted for the purposes of the strike-out application, the tribunal found that the claimant had not pled facts from which it could be inferred that disability was a reason for dismissal. The admitted gross misconduct of brandishing a knife in a small room with his manager would, in the tribunal's view, lead to dismissal of any employee regardless of disability.

Facts

The claimant, a 67-year-old employee being treated for cancer, was dismissed for gross misconduct after taking out a Stanley knife during a meeting with his manager and brandishing it, making stabbing motions towards himself. The claimant explained he had acted out of frustration due to his limited command of English, to demonstrate he felt the respondent had 'stabbed him in the heart' through their treatment of him. The claimant had earlier grievances about training, equipment, and questioning of his qualifications. After an investigation and disciplinary process, the respondent dismissed him, and rejected his appeal.

Decision

The tribunal struck out both the age and disability discrimination claims under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judge held that the claimant had failed to plead any proper comparator or facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The admitted conduct of brandishing a knife in a small room with his manager was the kind of conduct that would lead to dismissal regardless of age or disability. The earlier grievances, even if established, did not establish a link to the dismissal decision.

Practical note

A discrimination claim will be struck out even at the high threshold required where the claimant's admitted gross misconduct would inevitably lead to dismissal, and the claimant fails to plead facts from which discrimination could be inferred or to identify an appropriate comparator.

Legal authorities cited

Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931O'Neill v Governors of Thomas More School [1997] ICR 33Royal Mail Group v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55Romanowska v Aspiration Care Ltd UKEAT/0015/14Mechkarov v Citi Bank NA [2016] ICR 1121Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] ICR 120Ahir v British Airways plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392Owen and Briggs v Jones [1981] ICR 618

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.136Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.23

Case details

Case number
8000362/2023
Decision date
16 January 2024
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor